Preamble

The house met at half-past Nine o' clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 28 April at Seven o'clock.

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

COUNTY OF KENT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 30 April.

CONTINGENCIES FUND 1979–80

Accounts ordered,
of the Contingencies Fund, 1979–80, showing:—
(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1980, and
(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

European Community (Food Stocks)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the present food stocks held by the European Economic Community.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): The number of days' supply of public intervention stocks in the European Community at recent dates were approximately 15½ days of beef and veal, 11 days of butter, 25 days of skimmed milk powder, 24 days of cereals, 51 days of olive oil and eight days of oilseed rape.

Mr. Cox: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that nothing angers the British taxpayer more than the continuing stupidity of the food surpluses in the EEC? When will we rid ourselves of that

stupidity and stop selling them, as we often do, at giveaway prices? Why cannot those surpluses be made available to the elderly within the EEC or to the starving millions of the world? That would receive far more support than the present stupidity.

Mr. Walker: The Community is developing an increasing food aid programme for third countries and more recently especially for Poland. That has been of considerable importance. As for helping consumers, the United Kingdom enjoys a unique consumer subsidy in the major areas of surplus, namely, butter and dairy products.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not time to put an end to the con trick about the common agricultural policy being such a disaster? Is it not clear that, with all its imperfections, the policy has ensured for the people of Western Europe a steady supply of food and a reasonable standard of living for farmers at less cost than that paid by the United States or Japan for the maintenance of their agriculture?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Fried is correct in saying that the CAP has secured for Europe a security of food supplies and a degree of economic stability of considerable importance, but the Government consider that there are areas of surplus and potential danger that still need to be tackled. Certainly there is only one thing worse than a surplus, and that is a shortage.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the best way to measure a surplus is to consider the amount exported with Export refunds? Can he confirm that there are between 10 million and 15 million tonnes of cereals to be exported from the EEC this year and that there is a risk that some farmers producing food at cost will be put out of business?

Mr. Walker: I cannot give the figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a specific question about cereals. Certainly when measuring a surplus one has to look also at what is exported with export refunds

Glasshouse Industry (Energy Costs)

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress being made towards an equivalence of energy costs in the glasshouse industries of the United Kingdom and other member countries of the European Economic Community to ensure fair competition in horticulture.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the response of the Dutch Government to the requirement upon them to end the unfair advantage their horticulturists obtain from the provision of cheap gas supplies.

Mr. Peter Walker: I understand that a further announcement by the Dutch Government on gas prices to horticulture is imminent. Meanwhile I am taking every opportunity to press for the ending of the distortion of competition.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the horticulture industry is not satisfied with the progress being made to equivalence of competition? What has happened to the undertakings that my right hon. Friend gave to the industry on 13 and 17 March when he said that there would be a more definitive statement within two


weeks, based on the report of the energy task force? Does not that task force report highlight the fact that horticulture has the highest proportion of energy costs to total costs—at 40 per cent.—of any industry in the country? When will my right hon. Friend take action to remove from the British producer the appalling handicap of unfair competition?

Mr. Walker: It is an appalling handicap which needs to be tackled. When I met the horticulturists on 13 March I said that I hoped to make a statement by the end of the month. I was given to understand by the Dutch Government that they would announce their new gas prices before 31 March. Because the Dutch Minister had the Presidency of the Council of Ministers during the price fixing, that was not possible. I am told by the Dutch Government that the announcement is about to be made.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members with horticulture interests believe that the Dutch Government are prevaricating, in spite of the excuses by the Minister? Has his attention been drawn to early-day motion No. 317, which has been signed by nearly 70 hon. Members, most of whom are his Back-Bench colleagues? Is he aware that we had hoped that he would today announce an Easter present for horticulturists? Will he please ensure that an announcement is made before the end of the month?

Mr. Walker: I understand the frustration, which I share. However, I do not think that on this occasion the Dutch Government were prevaricating. The cause was the demand on the Minister during the price fixing, when he had the Presidency. The latest information from the Dutch Government is that they hope to make an announcement either this week or next. Soon after that I shall make a statement to the House.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if justice delayed is justice denied, the years of waiting while the European Community has failed to resolve the fuel price question represent a grave injustice to British growers? Does he accept, therefore, that the EEC procedures for dealing with charges of unfair trading practices must be thoroughly overhauled and speeded up?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Fish Conservation

Mr. Austin Mitchell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the light of the common fisheries policy deadlock, whether he will now introduce unilateral national conservation measures on mesh sizes, one net rule, beam trawling, and restricted access to specified areas.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): A satisfactory EEC regulation covering all the matters mentioned by the hon. Member is in operation now, and has been since 1 October 1980.

Mr. Mitchell: Did not the Conservative manifesto promise such conservation measures on a national basis if negotiations did not get anywhere? Does the Minister accept that, unless he maintains and exercises our right to impose national conservation measures, we shall surrender control of our fish stocks to a regime that is largely unworkable and is operated by countries that have

demonstrated by their attitude to fishing that they are untrustworthy? Does he agree that if that happens we shall have abandoned our control over that vital national resource?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. These measures, some of which were originally national measures, have been taken over by a Community conservation measure. In view of the hon. Gentleman's attitude to Europe, I can understand that he is disappointed that the common fisheries policy can operate such measures.

Mr. Mason: Although there should be concern about conservation, is not another matter more important? When does the Minister intend to report the findings of the inquiry into cheap fish imports? When is there likely to be an agreed Common Market solution to cheap fish dumping in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The investigating group met for the last time on Tuesday. We expect to receive its report shortly. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are extremely dissatisfied with the Commission's action on imports at below reference price from third countries. We shall continue to press the Commission extremely hard on that.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about negotiations over the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on negotiations for a common fisheries policy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on 30 March.

Mr. Brotherton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety in the port of Grimsby about the proposal to establish a box to the north of Scotland from which vessels over 80 ft in length will be excluded? Is he aware that that, will affect not only such vessels but the port of Grimsby as a whole, where many of my constituents work?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No proposals have yet been agreed on that aspect of the common fisheries policy. I accept that what has been discussed has an effect on ports such as Grimsby. At the same time, my hon. Friend should appreciate that we must examine the overall benefits of such proposals for the United Kingdom fishing industry as a whole.

Mr. Jay asked: the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is still the policy of the Government to insist on the United Kingdom 50-mile dominant preference zone in the negotiations for a European Economic Community common fisheries policy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the Government's objective is to obtain an adequate zone of exclusive access with preference beyond that designed to benefit coastal communities particularly dependent on fishing.

Mr. Jay: Does that mean that the Government have surrendered the condition of a 50-mile dominant preference zone, which was one of the most crucial points in the fisheries negotiations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are a number of different ways in which preference beyond an exclusive zone can be interpreted. It is interesting to note that the proposal for boxes, which might help communities dependent upon fishing, commands considerable support in the fishing industry.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that the House gave him and his right hon. Friend unanimously agreed negotiating objectives for a common fisheries policy? Was not one of those objectives the 12 to 50-mile dominant preference zone for United Kingdom fishermen? Is he saying that, in spite of talks with the fishermen, he has dropped that objective?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not at all. I said that there were a number of ways in which preference beyond 12 miles could be achieved. It is significant that the industry broadly supports us in our approach to particular areas where communities are dependent on fishing to ensure preference for our fishermen. That proposal has the support of the fishing industry.

Agricultural Land

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the acreage of land designated for agricultural use lost to other development or uses in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Secretary fo the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): The average yearly loss of agricultural land to development or other uses, excluding woodlands, in England in the five-year period ending June 1980 was 18,500 hectares, or 45,800 acres.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is far too much land lost for agricultural purposes? Does he agree also that it is ridiculous to expect our farmers to produce more and more on less and less land? Does he further agree that the overall policy assumes absurd proportions when, by my calculations, at least 250,000 acres of land lie derelict in our towns and cities?

Mr. Wiggin: Part of my duty is to seek to ensure that development is steered away from high quality agricultural land and therefore I can willingly answer in the affirmative to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Derelict land is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we are in touch about that. It is to the great advantage of both parties if derelict land is redeveloped.

Local Fishing Plans

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the local fishing plans which are being considered by the Government; and if he will make a statement on his general policy on such plans.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the view of Her Majesty's Government a revised common fisheries policy should include fishing plans involving access restrictions outside the 12-mile limit at North Scotland and in the Irish Sea.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that local plans and real positive help for communities that depend on the fishing industry are vital to the settlement of a common fisheries policy? Harking back to earlier replies and answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to stand by their commitment to secure dominant preference for British fishermen in the 12 to 50-mile band round our shores?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have made it clear that I believe that preference beyond 12 miles, to which the Government are committed, can be taken care of in our proposals for boxes. That approach has the support of the fishing industry.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that recent and planned conservation measures, which do not take sufficient account of the situation off the North-East coast, make any fishing ban impossible to operate? I refer in particular to the mesh sizes for whiting and shrimps and the lobster restrictions. The restrictions make it almost impossible to catch any fish at all.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. Fishermen become anxious when mesh sizes are increased, but the increases have taken place on the best scientific advice in order to conserve our fish stocks. If we are prepared to look to the future and not merely live in the present, we must adopt more effective conservation measures, and I believe that the majority of responsible fishermen accept that.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that on 23 March in The Times, in an interview with Hugh Clayton, he said that the Government's stance was very flexible and that it ruled out the desire of British fishermen for dominant preference in waters from 12 to 50 miles off the British coast? He shows one side of his face to fishermen, and the other side to the House. Is the hon. Gentleman misleading the House?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not in the least. I have been completely open with the House and with the fishing industry about the Government's objectives on fishing policy. The right hon. Gentleman's statement is simply sour grapes because the Government's approach is supported by the industry.

Coffee

Mr. Jessel: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent recent trends in the commodity price of coffee have been reflected in its retail price.

Mr. Wiggin: In the last six months both the green coffee price and the retail price of soluble coffee have shown a downward trend.

Mr. Jessel: If one goes back more than six months—to twelve months—has there not been a substantial downward trend whereby the commodity world price of coffee has dropped by about 30 per cent.? Does it not mean that people are still paying far too much for coffee, which is an important item in many people's budgets, particularly those who have to stay up late at night or get up early in the morning? Can anything be done about it? Does my right hon. Friend foresee the retail price of coffee dropping?

Mr. Wiggin: I take the point made by my hon. Friend at this hour in the morning. The retail price of soluble coffee is lower now than it was three and a half years ago and is only slightly above the lowest level in that period. The international coffee agreement appears to be working adequately. My hon. Friend will know that the price of coffee is regulated by other things, including transport, wages, and so on. I am satisfied that the picture is not quite as my hon. Friend paints it.

Cream

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when expects to receive the report of the Food Standards Committee in respect of possible amendments to the cream regulations.

Mr. Wiggin: The Food Standards Committee is at present engaged on its review of the cream regulations, and I do not expect to receive its report before the end of this year.

Mr. Hunt: Can my hon. Friend say whether the committee will consider the interests of consumers, who find that double cream is virtually indistinguishable from single cream, apart from a 50 per cent. higher price? Should not the committee at least lay down that the fat content of cream should be clearly displayed on cartons?

Mr. Wiggin: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Under the current compositional regulations, a minimal fat content of 55 per cent. is required for clotted cream, 48 per cent. for double cream, 18 per cent. for single cream, and 12 per cent. for half cream. The committee will study the figures and, I am sure, take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Farmgate Prices

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in farmgate prices for each of the main agricultural commodities consequent on the European Economic Community price review.

Mr. Peter Walker: Percentage increases in institutional prices for the main agricultural commodities are shown in the note on the settlement, which I have deposited in the Library of the House. It is not possible to determine precisely the effect on farm gate prices.

Mr. Spearing: I regret that the Minister is unable to give the figures to the House this morning. He announced a fortnight ago that £325 million would be given to farmers as a result of this package. Can he now tell us how the mathematical calculations of that award affect prices in the shops by only 1 per cent? Why has the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer questions on that subject on two occasions?

Mr. Walker: I have not refused to answer questions. It is clear that the beef premium, butter subsidy and lamb premium schemes substantially reduce prices. The hon. Gentleman will know that the price of agricultural products is only one part of food prices in general.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is it not true that the farming industry needed the level of farm price increases that was achieved in that way? Last year, when inflation was 15 per

cent., food prices rose by 9 per cent. and farmgate prices rose by only 6 per cent. Is it not an amazing track record that the farming industry managed to survive at all?

Mr. Walker: Yes. There is no doubt that over the past three years there has been a considerable squeeze on farm prices, not only in Britain but throughout Europe. British agriculture has made a considerable contribution to the battle against inflation.

Mr. Jay: Is it correct that the increase in EEC expenditure arising from these price changes is about £500 million or £600 million?

Mr. Walker: I forget the exact figure. With regard to the increase in Britain, a combination of the EMS changes and the overall position will mean, if anything, that our contribution will be slightly lower.

Mr. Strang: Did the Minister notice that the Prime Minister's immediate reaction in the House of Commons to the settlement was to stress the need for an urgent reform of the CAP? Will the Minister reconsider his attitude to the milk prices, particularly the French increase? Does he accept that that increase, combined with French national aids, will lead to increased production and cannot be justified in view of the massive structural surplus in that commodity?

Mr. Walker: It can be argued that the increase in the input costs of the dairy industry is still greater than price increases generally. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the French national aids will stimulate milk production in France. That is why the Commission is taking proceedings against the French Government.

Glasshouse Industry

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has come to a decision on the question of temporary aid for the United Kingdom glasshouse industry while it is facing competition from growers in other parts of the European Economic Community who enjoy subsidised fuel prices.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am giving the matter urgent attention and hope to reach a decision shortly.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he accept that speed is now of the essence?

Mr. Walker: I appreciate the serious situation of the glasshouse industry. As I said earlier, I had hoped to have the details of the Dutch gas prices so that the appropriate comparisons could be made. I hope that we can act quickly once the announcement is made.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I urge on the Minister the need for urgent action in this connection. Will he confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that foot and mouth disease was brought to the Isle of Wight in horticultural packaging of any sort?

Mr. Walker: I take advantage of that supplementary question to say how pleased I am that we have been able to lift the appropriate restrictions. I was grateful to receive a letter from the farmer who was originally primarily concerned, and whose stock had to be destroyed, in which he paid tribute to the swift action taken by veterinary staff in my Department.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I thank the Minister for making that statement on foot and mouth disease. However, is it not a great discourtesy to the House that so many Conservative Members who profess a great interest in agriculture are not present?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even on Maundy Thursday it is not a point of order if hon. Members are not here now.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Food Prices (International Comprison)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the prices in Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland of (a) a pound of butter, (b) a kilo of sugar and (c) a pound of steak; and how these prices compare with those in the United Kingdom.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I shall be writing to my hon. Friend with the exact statistics that he requires. The latest available information, based on a survey carried out in October 1979, demonstrates that butter was cheaper in the United Kingdom than in all the other countries inquired about, except Norway. Sugar was as cheap, or cheaper, in the United Kingdom than in any of the other countries, and beef was cheaper than in all the other countries, with the exception of Finland.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It is manifestly preposterous that this question, which was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The question deals with food prices and relates to the CAP. Merely because it affects the retail price index it has been transferred to the Department of Employment. I sympathise with my hon. Friend for having to deal with my supplementary question, but——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get around to asking his supplementary question.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It would appear that my hon. Friend has been abandoned by his Front Bench colleagues. Does not this question demonstrate the absurdity of the contention that the British consumer would be better off if we were outside the EEC, because European countries outside the EEC appear to be paying higher food prices than we are?

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful for the sympathy shown to me by my hon. Friend, but my Department keeps the statistics. The figures appear to bear out what he has said in his supplementary question.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: As food is generally available more cheaply outside than inside the Common Market, will the Minister tell us at what prices mutton, cheese, and butter, which are available from New Zealand, have to be sold on world markets in competition with dumped products from the Common Market? How much levy is paid on that produce when it comes into this country in order to increase the price to the British consumer?

Mr. Morrison: The original question referred not to New Zealand, but to Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden, Finland and, of course, the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman referred to butter. In October 1979 butter

cost 72p a pound in the United Kingdom, compared with £1·81 a pound in Switzerland. That seems a significant difference in favour of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: When my hon. Friend writes to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), will he put the answer in terms of the minutes worked by a married man, on national average wages, 'with two children under 11 years of age, so that proper comparisons can be made?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has bowled a rather fast ball. I shall not be able to acceed to his request because I do not think that we shall have the statistics available.

Mr. Jay: In view of the thirst for knowledge on these matters by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), will the Minister tell us the prices of these commodities in Australia and the United States as well as in New Zealand?

Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman will table a question, I am sure that I shall be able to help him.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the average standard of living in Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland significantly higher than that not merely in the United Kingdom but in the European Community as a whole?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter of opinion, which my hon. Friend obviously has. I should not like to comment upon it.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that the current levy, even at a specially reduced rate for New Zealand butter, is about 30p a pound and for other countries about 50p a pound?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm, first, that some non-EEC countries have cheaper commodities—indeed, he mentioned one in his answers—secondly, that wage rates in the other EEC countries listed in the question are much higher than in this country and, thirdly, that cheaper food supplies would be available to this country if we were not in the EEC?

Mr. Morrison: I confirm that in October 1979 a pound of sirloin in Finland cost £1·88 compared with £2·07 in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, it cost £3·20 in Norway. It will vary from country to country.

Mr. Mason: We recognise that the Common Market has a bad image, but the Minister does not seem to have improved it, or his own, today.

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter of opinion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes, as many of his hon. Friends believe, that we should remain in the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker: We shall have time to consider that remark. The House will be suspended until 10·15 when we shall take Prime Minister's questions.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 16 April.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is making an official visit to India.

Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing worry about the levels of lead in the air and elsewhere coming from petrol? Will he consider the recent report of the Inner London Education Authority, which suggests that lead levels in 23 school playgrounds are above the accepted safety levels? Is he aware that there are some who fear that the high levels of lead are a contributory factor to under-achievement and behavioural difficulties among children in inner city schools? Will he ensure that the views of the Department of Energy do not prevail over those of the Departments of Health and Social Security, Transport and Environment, and that the health of our children is the first consideration?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government as a whole take a serious view of this matter and are carefully considering what is right to be done.

Mr. Needham: During the course of his busy day will my right hon. Friend advise the House on the standards that local councils should apply to proposals to build large-scale nuclear underground shelters? Will he condemn the methods used by some fly-by-night operators who put forward such schemes using terror as a method of selling their dubious, highly unsatisfactory and probably unnecessary wares?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Home Office has issued detailed guidance for shelters in two recent publications, which set out what it believes to be the most suitable form of domestic nuclear shelter. If there are people acting as my hon. Friend has described, they are wrong. There are reputable shelters that can be purchased.

Mr. Foot: What advice has the right hon. Gentleman been giving to the Prime Minister over recent days, or even today, on the relationship between high unemployment and the crime rate? Does he agree with the somewhat extraordinary view that the Prime Minister seems to hold that high unemployment, especially high youth unemployment, is not related to, or is not primary cause of some disturbances? Does he agree with the recent report made by the chief constable of Northumbria, which points a very different moral?

Mr. Whitelaw: Surely the whole House will agree that there can never be any justification for crime, whether it be social conditions, unemployment or anything else. There can never be any excuse for criminal activity.

Mr. Foot: We are not talking about justification of crime. We are trying to deal with the causes. A commission has been set up that will try to examine some of the causes. Has the right hon. Gentleman read some of the studies that have been undertaken? I am sure that he should have done. If not, I hope that he will read yesterday's edition of the Daily Star, which gave a full account of what was said by the chief constable of

Northumbria. He said that half of the crimes recently committed in Northumbria were committed by young people who were unemployed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the report raises serious matters and confirms what I should think is obvious to most people—namely, that high unemployment, especially among young people, causes grave events, or contributes to their cause? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on this report from a chief constable in his own area?

Mr. Whitelaw: In my capacity as Home Secretary I study all these reports most carefully. I consider the various evidence that is brought forward on criminal activities. It is important for me to do so. There are different reasons for crime in our nation today which many people rehearse and which I study carefully. I return to my simple point that once we start saying that there is some excuse for criminal activities we shall be making a great mistake.

Mr. Foot: That is something altogether different. Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the rate of unemployment has gone up 48 per cent. in his area? The chief constables are talking about that. Cannot he and the Government listen to what is being said all over the country on those matters? When will the Government do something about that rise in unemployment?

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course I am listening to such matters. I can only add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said consistently, that the Government believe that the policies which we are pursuing are the best way, in the long run, of providing real jobs. That must be our purpose.

Mr. Beith: As the Sandwell local government workers have thrown out the closed shop rule under which Miss Joanna Harris was deprived of her job, will the Home Secretary ask the Prime Minister to congratulate Miss Harris on the stand which she has taken? Will he also ask the Prime Minister to go back to Strasbourg and tell the European Commission of Human Rights that it was never the Government's intention to defend British Rail's sacking of three people on the same basis, and that they will do everything in their power to give back the jobs to those people?

Mr. Whitelaw: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government's position was made clear at the time. Many people will applaud the action of the employees of Sandwell council. They will also hope that, as a result of that, Sandwell council will take back Miss Joanna Harris.

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 16 April.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend join with many of my hon. Friends in deploring the activities of certain Socialist-controlled towns in the so-called "Republic of South Yorkshire," which have banned recruiting by local regiments in schools controlled by them and which have also prevented local regimental bands from performing at local council functions? Is that not a disgraceful slap in the face to all those brave men and women from South Yorkshire who fought during two world wars and at other times?

Mr. Whitelaw: If the Sheffield council were to take that course, I should have thought that that would be thoroughly unwise. I do not believe that it would carry the people and the ratepayers in that area with it. There are good military traditions in Yorkshire which many people in that part of the world support. Therefore, I hope that, if the Sheffield council were minded to pursue that course, it would realise what a stupid and unwise action it was taking.

Mr. Straw: Will the Government submit evidence to the Scarman inquiry in support of the Prime Minister's contention that unemployment is not only not an excuse for the Brixton riots but is not a cause of those riots?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall carefully consider what the Government will say to the Scarman inquiry. Those matters come into my area as Home Secretary.

Mr. Fell: In view of the threat from the Civil Service trade unions to British people who wish to travel abroad this weekend, does my right hon. Friend know whether the offer by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, to the unions has been taken up yet?

Mr. Whitelaw: Not yet. With regard to the threat of disruption of traffic over Easter, it is worth remembering that, at the start of this unfortunate dispute, the Civil Service unions said that they did not want to harm the public. If they proceed as they apparently intend to over the weekend, there is no doubt that they will harm the public. I hope that they will decide to talk and will not go back on what they promised.

Mr. Cunliffe: What Easter message will the Prime Minister send to the thousands of young people and school leavers in my area, many of whom are leaving school when there are only four job vacancies? How does he suggest that they should share the joys of Easter when their first job will be to join the dole queue, which in my area already consists of 5,000 unemployed?

Mr. Whitelaw: If he was fair, the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge how much the Government have done through the youth opportunities programme and training schemes for young school leavers. Such schemes are important and right at times of difficult employment conditions.

Mr. Jessel: With regard to the Brixton riots, will my right hon. Friend stress that the large number of police in Brixton is inevitable because of the extent of crime, such as mugging and robbery, in that area?

Mr. Whitelaw: Those matters will come into Lord Scarman's inquiry. Therefore, I do not wish to prejudge much of what will follow from that. It is true that there was a high crime rate in Brixton. It is the job of the police to deal with criminal acts and to protect law-abiding citizens. That is their job, and they must have the necessary resources to carry it out.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman have time to consider with the Prime Minister the problems of cities such as Leicester, with large immigrant communities which are remarkably well and happily integrated and far removed in condition from the sad borough of Brixton? Nevertheless, such cities are anxious about the growth of unemployment, homelessness and

hardship. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those conditions provide fertile soil for unrest, unhappiness, violence and extremism in all its forms?

Mr. Whitelaw: I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to community relations in Leicester, which have been conducted with care. He and many of those concerned with such affairs in Leicester can take credit for what has happened there. I hope that that will long continue. Of course, there are difficulties with social conditions, upon which extremists thrive. We must make sure that the extremists are not successful, as, alas, they seem to be sometimes in different areas.

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 April.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Brotherton: When the Prime Minister returns from her travels, will my right hon. Friend tell her of the grave concern felt about her reply in the House last week to the effect that the Civil Service had been reduced by only 35,000 since the Government came into office? Is not that a derisorily small total? Would it be possible slightly to increase the 7 per cent. pay offer to the Civil Service provided there was a massive reduction in their numbers?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not have thought that 35,000 was a derisory number. I remind my hon. Friend of our target reduction figure of 100,000 by 1984, to which we must adhere and which is right. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President has made clear the Government's belief that the 7 per cent. offer is fair and that we are standing by it.

Mr. Woolmer: As the Government profess to be anxious to resolve the Civil Service dispute and as, presumably, considerable discussions have been taking place in Government Departments on a new pay system, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the unions were to meet the Government, the Government would now be able to put specific proposals before the unions for proper discussion and negotiation?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President has offered the unions the opportunity to come to talks. When they do so, that is the moment such discussions should take place.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to condemn retrospective legislation, both in principle and practice?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report published yesterday by British Rail, containing the threat that fares are likely to go up again next November? As this matter is before the Cabinet at the moment, does he appreciate that the poor, hard-pressed commuters are not prepared to pay more unless they receive a better service and more modern facilities which go with it? Will the Government come to a rapid decision on that matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman echoes the views of many people who use our railway services, which are now facing considerable problems. There must be discussions so that those problems can be resolved.

Mr. Fox: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 April.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Fox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most welcome news that last year the United Kingdom had a balance of £700 million in its trade with the rest of the Common Market, as opposed to a deficit of £2,600,000 in 1979? Does not that show the advantages of being a member of the Common Market and highlight the ludicrous position of the Labour Party in talking about taking Britain out of the Common Market?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those figures are important. The Labour Party has threatened to take the country out of the Community. Mercifully, I do not believe that it will ever have the opportunity, but even if it did I do not believe that it would do so. That would be too mad, even for that party.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Home Secretary accept that, until action was taken by the Civil Service, it faced a continuing campaign of sneers and denigration from the Government and Conservative Back Benchers? If he is so anxious to

avoid difficulties over Easter, why does not he treat the civil servants' claim in the same way as the Government treated the miners?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the accusation about a campaign of sneers and denigration. I certainly pay tribute to the very important work of the Civil Service in providing a service to the public as a whole. What I regret is that, having made very clear at the start of the dispute that they did not wish to harm the public in any way, civil servants' actions are now, unfortunately, doing just that.

Mr. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that I am sure is common to hon. Members on both sides of the House over the unlawful killing of Barry Prosser in Winson Green Prison? Is it not the case that Prosser must have been killed either by inmates or, more likely, by prison officers? Is it not a disgrace to the British prison system that this should have happened? Is it not clear that a full inquiry must be instituted? Does he agree that the fact that a senior prison officer has been acquitted of the offence is not a sufficient disposal of the matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the papers in this case have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the coroner has made various statements. It would be quite wrong for me to comment on these matters in those circumstances.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement about the business for the week when we return?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The Business for the week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 APRIL—Second Reading of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Diving Operations at Work Regulations. 
TUESDAY 28 APRIL—Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Debate on the economic and social problems of Greater London, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
At Seven o'clock, opposed private business has been named for consideration.
WEDNESDAY 29 APRIL—Second Reading of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords] and of the Supreme Court Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Health and Safety (Fees for Medical Examinations) Regulations.
THURSDAY 30 APRIL—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 1 MAY—Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Foot: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making arrangements for the debate on London. We believe, particularly in the light of recent terrible events, that it is most important that the House should discuss this matter. Although we shall no doubt need many further debates on the matter, we are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's enabling us to debate it next Tuesday, as the Opposition requested.
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to make his leakage about how he proposes to deal with the petrol increase? Will he do that during the recess, or when we return?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the arrangements for the debate on London. I think I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be adhering to his view and recommendation about the tax on petrol.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to allow 10 minutes for business questions, to be fair to those hon. Members who have the Adjournment debates that follow.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I notice that my right hon. Friend once again has not stated the business for the following Monday in giving the business for the next parliamentary week. Will it be his practice not to do so henceforth, or was it simply for a particular reason today?

Mr. Pym: That is normal form at this range of time. The announcement for the week when we return after the recess normally ends with the Friday, the following Monday being thought by both parties to be too far ahead to be confident.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Leader of the House will remember that on 6 April he informed my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr.

Powell) that the Government hoped to make a statement on electricity prices in Northern Ireland before the end of the month. When may we expect such a statement?

Mr. Pym: I cannot go further than the response that I made before. It is still our intention and expectation to respond on this matter and make a statement about it in one form or another at the end of the month. I am sorry that it will not be possible to do it before then.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Can my right hon. Friend arrange time to debate the unreasonable slur cast by the Leader of the Opposition in implying that unemployed people are more likely to commit crime than other sections of the community, and to make the point that many unemployed people in other parts of the country where unemployment is greater than in London or in Bristol are not liable to commit crime?

Mr. Pym: That is not a matter for which I would seek to provide time, but the right hon. Gentleman may wish to seek to do so.

Mr. David Winnick: Deploring as we all do the crimes and atrocities of the IRA and, indeed, of all the other para-military groups in Northern Ireland, is it not important to provide time as quickly as possible to debate what is happening about the hunger strikers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the hunger strikers to die and thus create yet more martyrs in Northern Ireland will only escalate the tension there and do nothing to resolve the tragedy, which must one day be resolved—in conjunction, of course, with the Government of Ireland?

Mr. Pym: There have been a number of opportunities for debating these important matters in relation to Northern Ireland, but I do not think that I shall be able to find time for the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the fairly near future to implement his often-repeated assurance that he will find time for a debate on foreign affairs in the near future?

Mr. Pym: I hope to do that soon after we return from the recess.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House, over Easter, consider providing time for a debate on the effectiveness and scope of the register of Members' interests? Will he at the same time consider a debate on the Royal Commission report on standards of conduct in public life, which recommends legislation affecting Members of Parliament and was produced to the House in 1976, and for which successive Governments have never provided time for a debate? Is he aware that many people regard that as little short of scandalous?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir.

Mr. Greville Janner: May I further press the Leader of the House about the debate on foreign affairs? He assured us that it would be immediately before or after the recess, which it is not. He now only hopes to have it soon after the recess. Does he agree that there are urgent issues that we ought to debate, some major, such as Poland and the Middle East, and some affecting individuals, such as the arrest of Dr. Brailowski in the Soviet Union and the continued persecution and harassment of Jewish activists in that country who are seeking to leave?

Mr. Pym: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted my words quite accurately, but I will certainly advance on the words that he quotes me as saying—that we hope to have a debate soon after the recess—and say that we expect to arrange one soon after the recess.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Public Order Act and the problems concerning the blanket banning of marches? I refer to the intention to ban National Front and racist marches, and the fact that these bans have a wide-ranging effect on many other marches. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is increasing worry about this. Will he find time for the House to discuss it?

Mr. Pym: I do not think that I can find Government time in the foreseeable future, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find some other opportunity to raise that important matter.

Petition

Widows (Benefits)

Mr. Tony Durant: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition from the National Association of Widows drawing attention to their grievance regarding the overlapping benefits rule. Petitions on the same issue have been submitted, signed by more than 71,000 signatories from all parts of the country, including Northern Ireland. Those signatures will be presented to the Department of Health and Social Security.
The petition sheweth
That WIDOWS paying Class 1 National Insurance Contributions do not receive the benefits which are due from the payments of those said National Contributions and that receipt of a WIDOWS PENSION should not exclude them from entitlement to Sickness, Unemployment and Industrial injury benefits.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take steps to ensure that WIDOWS will either receive full benefit from their Class 1 National Insurance Contributions, or be no longer required to pay these said contributions.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Unemployment (Leeds)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Joseph Dean: I believe that this debate on the effects of unemployment in Leeds is extremely relevant. Certainly, bearing in mind the questions that were put to the Home Secretary in the absence of the Prime Minister by Members of the Opposition, it can be said that what is happening in Leeds today is mirrored in almost every other major city in the United Kingdom and the conurbations in which the majority of our people reside. I am delighted to have obtained this debate, because this is the most acute and depressingly dangerous problem facing that great city and its residents at this time and for the foreseeable future.
Leeds is the second largest city outside London. Its population of more than 750,000 represents almost half the population of the metropolitan county of West Yorkshire. Historically, the city's prosperity has been based on a diversity of industries and commerce, with perhaps the main industrial emphasis placed on engineering, textiles and clothing manufacture. During the debate I hone to highlight what has happened to that industrial base during the past two years under the Tory Government.
I should point out that I am speaking about a wider area than the city of Leeds, because the figures that I shall quote relate to the Leeds travel-to-work area. The people from that wider area who man the industries to which I have referred have traditionally been hard working and moderate in their wage claims. They have one of the best industrial records in the country. Therefore, no one can claim that the rapid increase in unemployment there is either due to their own actions or in any way self-inflicted.
To illustrate the problem, I shall quote the figures for the Leeds travel-to-work area during the past two years. In March 1979, the total of unemployed, both male and female, was 17,551, or 6·4 per cent. of the working population. At that time the percentage figure was slightly better than the national average. Since then the situation has deteriorated alarmingly in what was once a reasonably prosperous area. On 12 March this year unemployment stood at 33,575, or 12·1 per cent. That means that in the city of Leeds and the surrounding areas unemployment has more or less doubled.
It is no use Ministers or the Government falling back on the stock answer that they are not responsible for what has happened during the past two years. I am well aware that the Government inherited an unemployment level of 1½ million, but the rise over the past two years has been the fastest in history. It is no good the Government's saying that they are not responsible for what has happened. They must bear a large responsibility for the situation that their policies have created. Indeed, the situation will continue to deteriorate unless there is a drastic change in those policies. High interest rates and the lack of a firm imports policy have played a major role in creating the problems in Leeds and the surrounding areas.
Although the recent reduction in MLR is welcome, it is by no means large enough to make a substantial impact. Increased energy costs and the Chancellor's recent announcement about increases in the price of petrol and derv will only have a worse effect, as it is well known that,


compared with our overseas competitors, including those in the EEC, British industry suffers more severely because of energy charges.
On 11 July last year the Yorkshire Evening Post reported a debate that took place in the House in which I stated what was happening in Leeds. The acceleration of the problem has since been much greater than anyone expected. During that debate, on the Government's industrial policies, I asked certain questions of the Secretary of State. For example, I asked why there was an increase in job provision in the Conservative areas of the country compared with job losses in traditional Labour areas. That was not the first time that I had asked that question. I had asked it previously of the "Secretary of State for Unemployment". No answer was forthcoming until the House debated the engineering industry in December, when the then Minister at the Department of Industry, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), admitted that jobs had been lost in areas such as Leeds because of deliberate Government policy.
I cannot understand why I had to wait such a long time for an answer. It was beyond belief when I heard the Minister say that a company in my constituency had moved to Cornwall which was regarded as a better area because of the status granted by the Government, especially when we consider what has happened there since.
The three industries which I highlighted earlier have suffered most severely. Engineering—the industry to which I belonged—has seen a massive reduction in jobs. It is the largest employing industry in the manufacturing sector, yet over the last decade the number of apprenticeships has halved. In other words, when the so-called upturn in the economy takes place we shall not have a sufficient number of apprentices to become skilled men. That is the size of the tragedy.
The largest acceleration in the loss of apprenticeships has occurred during the last two years. I am secretary of the AUEW engineering group of Members of Parliament. We have met many times and discussed the possibility of approaching Ministers in order to prevent the closure of engineering industries, of which there has been a surfeit in the Leeds area.
Textile and clothing manufacturers, on which Leeds primarily made its name, have suffered the most savage job losses of all. Most of the industries in Leeds, which were household names, have disappeared from the face of the earth and I doubt whether they will ever return.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems in the textile and clothing industries affect not only the main city of Leeds but also the outlying textile towns such as Batley and Morley? Is he aware that unemployment in Morley has increased by 167 per cent. since the Government came into office and that 27 people are now chasing every vacancy? In fact, the situation is even worse in Batley where 66 unemployed people chase every vacancy. Does he agree that the massive demonstration of textile workers in Bradford last week reflects their genuine fear because they are baffled by the fact that their own moderation over the years has now been rewarded by the destruction of their industry?

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) is correct. The people of that area

are fortunate to have a Member of Parliament who has shown such a close interest in that industry. His knowledge about it is probably second to none.
A few weeks ago, a lobby came to the House, composed mainly of women, to protest at the loss of textile jobs and the way in which the industry in Yorkshire has been savaged. Those people could not understand why their industry had received nothing like the assistance given to other major industries to enable them to stay afloat until better times came. These industries are interdependent, but in the steel or mining industry the muscle is there to get funding from taxpayers' money—and quite rightly.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: My lion. Friend and I both represent Leeds constituencies. He will be aware that 2,000 jobs per month are disappearing from the wool and textile industry. Having visited Taiwan, I know why. Can my hon. Friend deal with import duties? The Taiwanese export to us and pay an import duty of only 6¾ per cent., but our exports to them are 100 per cent. dutiable, which makes our effective and efficient industry wholly uncompetitive.

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend is correct. We play the game over international agreements, which is perhaps a good thing. I learnt this morning that the Japanese have been cooking the books over exports of manufactured goods. I ask the Government, as I asked the Labour Government, to be more assiduous and forceful to ensure that import controls are rigidly adhered to. Where we need to save an industry on which our prosperity depends, they should even consider banning the import of certain commodities.
The catalogue of industrial contraction is sad and shocking. Unemployment is a tragedy for everyone involved. Our youths and school leavers provide the seed corn for the future. In March 1980 in the Leeds travel-to-work area 199 school leavers under the age of 18 could not obtain work. In March 1981, the figure was 684, an increase of over 300 per cent. For young people between the ages of 18 and 20 the figure in 1980 was 2,627 and is now 5,297, an increase of 100 per cent. The last set of figures is only an accurate estimate because of the civil servants' industrial action. It is a tragic waste. I trained to be an engineer at 14 years of age and helped to produce marketable goods until I came to the House.
The Government's policy will not help to solve the problem. With so many youngsters unemployed and the situation getting worse, the tragedy in Brixton may occur elsewhere. The nation and certainly the Government have a lot to answer for. Last week in the debate on youth unemployment the Minister blandly said that the predictions were that four in five school leavers would get jobs. That sounds all right until we realise that one in five is 20 per cent. The Government believe that 20 per cent. unemployment for school leavers is acceptable. I welcome the youth opportunities programme, but it is only a palliative and a substitute for real jobs.
I have spoken of the youths in my area. When I finish canvassing for the local elections I call occasionally into clubs. More and more people of 50 years of age and upwards tell me "I have finished work, Joe. I have been made unemployed." Those men will be on the dole for the remainder of their lives. What sort of society are we becoming if we accept that? There is little opportunity for


people in the middle age range to get jobs. The enormity of the tragedy affects everyone from school leavers to people who are about to retire.
Two politicians who should be grateful to the people of Leeds are playing an unacceptable role in the tragedy facing the city. The first is the Secretary of State for Industry. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman and told him that I should be mentioning him. It is unfortunate that pressure of business has kept him away from the Chamber. He has severely damaged Leeds's prosperity. In 1982 Leeds will lose its assisted area status, which is a scandal. Politicians of both major parties in West Yorkshire have pleaded with him to reverse his decision. There is time to reconsider. I hope that he will think of the people he represents.
The second politician is the noble Lord Bellwin, a former Conservative leader of the Leeds city council. He is now an Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment. He has meekly acquiesced in Leeds's rate support grant being reduced by 4½ per cent. so that the Conservative shire counties may receive increased allocations. The reduction has forced the local authority to shed labour. Perhaps the enormity of the tragedy can be seen when I say that between 20 and 30 school teachers have been made redundant. There could be no greater waste of talent and damage to our future.
The Government should take immediate action to reverse the desperate situation in Leeds—and it is not only in Leeds; it is a national problem. They should urgently introduce a further substantial cut in the minimum lending rate and make use of the North Sea oil revenues. The cut in the MLR is called for by all sections of industry, including the CBI. North Sea oil revenues should be used immediately to introduce a crash programme in the public sector to include building council houses and re-equipping and modernising our manufacturing industries to allow them to compete more favourably with foreign competitors.
The quickest and best investment would be a substantial increase in council house building. The waiting list in Leeds is over 30,000, yet the Goverment are instructing local authorities to sell houses, increasing it even further. A quick way of getting people off the dole queues and into work is to establish a substantial building programme that includes the modernisation of council houses. That is also one of the quickest and best ways of creating productive apprenticeships.
Time will not be on our side unless drastic action is taken. The deterioration of the industrial base of Leeds and of the nation will continue. In some areas that base is being damaged almost beyond repair. It will not reappear and that will be to the detriment of our nation. Some people may judge the happenings in Brixton as an oddity. I hope that they are, because they do not achieve an end.
The people of Leeds represent one of the most stable, orderly and law-abiding communities in Britain. The pressures imposed on them could easily have an adverse effect before long. We boast about our education system and we are proud that youngsters leave school with more and better qualifications than five years or a decade ago. What future are we providing for them? We are giving them the opportunity to go straight to the dole queues. Given the way in which basic industries have been mauled and damaged, I cannot see an end to the dole queues. I

cannot see any hope of improvement unless there is a drastic reversal of the Government's policies and unless they take note of those in industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am delighted to reply to the prints raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean). I am also delighted that he was lucky enough to be able to initiate this Adjournment debate. I have always been a keen supporter of Leeds. Obviously, I do not know the city as well as the hon. Gentleman, but whenever I have been there extremely generous hospitality has been accorded to me. I have always received a very friendly reception.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it is an illustrious city not only in its make-up but in its representation in the House. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is in the Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry represents a Leeds constituency. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also represents a Leeds constituency, as does the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen). That demonstrates to the citizens of that city that their views are well represented in the House.
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman was correct when he said that the citizens of Leeds were hardworking, industrious and moderate. No doubt that is why it is such a great city of the North. In his thoughtful speech, the hon. Gentleman made clear the anxiety that he feels about the problems that the recession has brought to the Leeds area. Although unemployment in the Leeds travel-to-work area is running at below the national average, I fully recognise that the position has deteriorated markedly since last year.
The problems facing the textile industry are felt deeply in West Yorkshire. The Government in no way wish to minimise the real hardships—both social and economic—which unemployment has brought to Leeds. We have never sought to disguise the severity of the present unemployment situation; nor have we made any secret of the fact that unemployment may get worse before it gets better. However, I am sure that Opposition Members will agree that we must not forget that the economic situation today is not the economic situation of, say, five years ago. We are in the midst of one of the worst periods of economic recession that the country has known. That has had effects not only on the traditional areas of high unemployment but also on those areas that would normally expect to escape the worst of any slump. Leeds, like many other areas, finds itself facing relatively new problems.
Unemployment is like a cancer which eats away at all it touches. It affects not only those who are out of work, but their families and friends and, perhaps hardest of all, their children. Understandably, the hon. Gentleman referred to men in their late forties and early fifties who found themselves in personal difficulties. Thanks to the recession, they have lost their jobs and wonder what to look forward to. I sympathise with them.
However, there are signs that the economy may at least be on the upturn. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will agree that inflation is falling. We are seeing more moderate pay settlements. In the last six months of 1980, the number of strikes was the lowest since the war and the number of days lost was the lowest since 1966. The hon. Gentleman asked


for a reduction in the minimum lending rate. I hope that he will agree that a reduction per se would not necessarily solve the problem.
In my view and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a reduction in the minimum lending rate would exacerbate the problem. Were it to be reduced, it would prove impossible to fund the public sector borrowing requirement. That would involve the printing of money, which in turn would involve a higher rate of inflation, which in its turn would involve a greater number of lost jobs.
Just as I know from my constituency of Chester, the hon. Gentleman will know that firms are finding new markets and are making themselves more competitive both at home and overseas. All is not doom and gloom. For example, in the Leeds area there are a number of signs that firms are showing confidence in the future. I am told that Systime Ltd. hopes to build a £13 million factory in Leeds which may create up to 1,000 jobs by 1984.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is not my hon. Friend encouraged by the fact that a substantial investment has recently been taken in Systime Ltd. by a group of Edinburgh finance houses, which has been particularly successful in spotting winners in this type of advanced technology?

Mr. Morrison: If that is the case, I am encouraged.
Tudor Vehicles Imports (UK) Ltd. of Morley is expanding and hopes to create 400 new jobs over the next three years. Garanor Ltd. of Rothwell is setting up a freight complex, which could lead to the creation of 1,000 jobs.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the role that local authorities can play. I understand that Leeds city council is taking on 50 apprentices this year, which is double its normal intake. The authority is also spending £2 million on setting up a science park for microtechnology firms, which could bring 1,000 jobs to the city. Another example of local initiative can be seen in the Leeds business venture, which was recently established by the Leeds chamber of commerce to provide assistance to people wishing to set up in business and to advise existing firms. To date, I understand that the venture has had about 115 inquiries, which have led to 20 new firms being set up. In addition, help and advice have been given to over 50 existing firms.
Those are all optimistic signs. After all, companies are run by business men who are unlikely to invest money if there is to be no tomorrow. Like the rest of the country, Leeds has a future and many in the area will benefit from the confidence shown by the companies that I have mentioned. No doubt there are many other such companies.
The Government have a role to play and we are doing all we can to encourage firms to expand in the Leeds area. Since the general election in May 1979, Government financial assistence worth £2·2 million has been offered under section 7 of the Industry Act for 41 projects in the Leeds travel-to-work area, involving a total estimated investment of nearly £34 million. The estimated number of jobs associated with those projects was almost 3,000. During the same period, £1·7 million was offered under section 8 of the Industry Act for 95 projects, involving a total estimated investment of £10 million.
However, ultimately a fall in the level of unemployment in Leeds depends primarily not on the amount of

regional assistance that the area receives but on the vitality and competitiveness of industry and commerce in Leeds and on the degree of co-operation between managements and work forces. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said we need to tackle the root causes of higher unemployment. The main cause—the hon. Gentleman does not necessarily agree with me on this—is the current recession. It is outside our control. I hope that we shall agree that it is a world recession and not just a United Kingdom recession.
We also have to consider the public expenditure implications of the previous Labour Government. I do not mean to make a great political point here, but, if public expenditure were allowed to get wholly out of control, we should be back in the same old downward whirl that we have experienced for so long in this country. At the last general election we made clear our intention to control public spending, and we are sticking to it.
In a period of world recession, the Government's role in a national recovery can be likened to that of a member of a team. We cannot do it on our own. It will involve industry, trade unions, commerce, and all areas of the economy which have helped us to thrive in the past and will help us to thrive in the future, particularly in a great city such as Leeds.
As the chief Opposition spokesman on employment, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), said in 1978, we need
if we are to remain competitive and increase our share of world markets, increased production and higher productivity. The result will be more jobs and greater prosperity".
The right hon. Gentleman put it better than I could put it. We must produce what people want. It is no use producing goods that people do not want to buy. It has to be done up to the standard that people require and at the price that they are prepared to pay. If we meet those criteria, the customers will come back.
The Government cannot be expected to wave a magic wand and overnight solve the problems of Leeds or anywhere else, as some Opposition Members seem to think, although I would not suggest for a moment that the hon. Gentleman put the matter in that way. What the Governmen can do, and what we are seeking to do, is to create the conditions which will enable United Kingdom firms, including those in the Leeds area, to compete successfully in world markets and thus create a genuine demand for labour. That is the only way in which to improve employment prospects, and that is why there is no alternative to our policy and no easy way out.
I hope that local authorities, whether in Leeds, Chester or anywhere else, are aware that, if they increase rates substantially the likelihood of new industry coming into their areas is thereby diminished" as compared with other areas.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I ought to make the Minister aware that Leeds is probably one of the lowest rated of the big cities.

Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention on behalf of Leeds, but rates have to be borne in mind by any potential industrial investor, and councils in turn must be aware of the effect on jobs if rates are increased substantially.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that to the tens of thousands of unemployed people and
people on short time working, and to the managers of factories that stand


half idle, many of his words, however nicely put, will sound very complacent? What is his answer to the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry, which has called on the Government to reflate? What is his answer to the CBI, which says that, unless something is done about the exchange rate, our manufacturing industries cannot be competitive?

Mr. Morrison: As I said earlier, I do not believe that reflation is the right way to tackle the problem, because it would create inflation, which in turn would mean fewer jobs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman saw the front page of the Financial Times this morning where it was stated that the CBI is now taking a somewhat different line from the one taken by it a week or two ago.
I do not wish to sound complacent because I am not complacent. I am very concerned about those without jobs, and in particular the young. The youth opportunities programme—this is where the Government have shown themselves to be a caring Government—has been particularly successful in the Leeds area.
Since April 1980, almost 4,600 young people have entered the schemes. The stock of approved places is currently 3,200, of which almost 2,400 are occupied. It is hoped that the Easter guarantee will be met and that everyone eligible and suitable for a youth opportunities programme place in Leeds will be offered one. The fact that the guarantee should be met is largely attributable to the overwhelming response from voluntary organisations as well as the public and private sectors, combined with the help of the local careers service.
We must not forget the important role of training—the hon. Gentleman mentioned it in his speech—in improving individual employment prospects. Leeds is particularly well served in this respect, with skillcentres at Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield, and in having a large number of colleges and employers' establishments where skills can be acquired. In 1981–82, the Leeds-Bradford office of the Manpower Services Commission's training services division aimed to offer places to 2,360 adults and to make available 2,500 opportunities to young people.
The Government are doing all they can to help. The position in Leeds is linked indissolubly with that in the rest of the country. The enemy is inflation, which destroys jobs and creates unemployment.
As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said when he was Prime Minister in 1978,
Keep inflation down, reduce unemployment further, export more, improve our productivity. These will remain our main tasks".
These are our priorities, too, and the signs are that we are on the way to achieving them. We must not be diverted from this course.

Health and Social Services (Fife)

Mr. Barry Henderson: I am very glad of the opportunity to raise the subject of the provision of DHSS services in my constituency. I am particularly glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), is to reply to the debate. Not only is her very considerable concern for social matters very well

known—the kind of concern that is shared by many hon. Members—but in her case it is matched by a very well proven administrative ability in giving practical implementation to her concern. That is particularly appropriate in this debate in which I wish especially to deal is with the way in which efficient DHSS services can be provided to my constituents rather than with the nature of the services themselves. Perhaps it is also appropriate on a happy Easter Adjournment that this is not a party political issue, for behind-the-scenes moves in this matter have been going on for a number of years.
My main introduction to the problem came only a few months after I was elected the hon. Member for Fife, East, when one of the Civil Service trade unions drew attention to the possibility of the closure of the St. Andrew's DHSS office. When one inquired further into these matters, a much wider and more unsatisfactory situation was revealed.
The St. Andrew's office is a relic of the pre-1966 days, when there were two quite separate organisations—on the one hand, the National Assistance Board, handling what we would now consider to be supplementary benefit, and, on the other, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, handling what we would now regard as contributory benefit. The St. Andrew's office handles only the latter type of activity, and, indeed, not all of that.
I understand that, as a result of the merger of those two main activities in 1966, moves were started to achieve a network of integrated local offices throughout the country. That was a commendable objective, but the wheels seem to have ground extraordinarily slowly. It seems to have taken 10 years, through a period first of a Labour Government, then a Conservative Government, and then a further Labour Government, for the plan for East Fife to begin to merge. Five years later, and with another Conservative Government in office, it has still not yet been effected.
A computer and a large—scale map would be required to work out for most constituents where their relevant DHSS office is located. It would depend on where they live and whether the matter concerns supplementary benefit or contributory benefit. Only the Forth coastal fringe of the constituency receives both services from the same office.
Places as remote from one another as Dundee, Kirkcaldy, St. Andrews, Leven and Perth all have a finger in the pie. Sometimes Auchtermuchty is referred to in debate as an example of a typical, sensible local community, but if one lived in Auchtermuchty and found it necessary to deal with the DHSS on supplementary benefit and contributory benefit matters, to go to the appropriate local office in a motor car would take approximately half a day. One would have to travel to Perth and to Kirkcaldy respectively because one place is 20 miles to the south and the other 20 miles to the north of Auchtermuchty. If, like so many clients of the Department of Health and Social Security, one did not have access to a motor car, it would take from dawn to dusk and much hard travelling to visit the relevant social security offices.
The local telephone directory for Fife and Kinross district, under the heading "Social Security", lists Cowdenbeath, Dunfermline, St. Andrews, Leven and Kirkcaldy. It repeats some of those places under a different heading, but nowhere does it refer to Dundee or Perth, yet Dundee and Perth contain the social security offices for a


substantial part of my constituency. That makes it difficult for my constituents to understand where they should go for the appropriate service.
That situation having been inherited, there is a clear need for decision. I accept the undoubted desirability of integrated local offices. I can understand why the Minister wishes to see rationalisation, but that is where we must, regrettably, part company, unless I can persuade her of the merits of my solution, which is for a single integrated local office for north-east Fife.
The plans so far put forward by the Department are tidy when looked at from Edinburgh on a small-scale map, but they leave much to be desired in the way of services to the customer. The proposals are based too much on past errors and out-of-date considerations and not enough on a consideration of the homogeneous nature of north-east Fife, its communities and the general pattern of local administration that has evolved in the past five or six years.
Undoubtedly, one of the considerations originally envisaged by the Department when local government was reformed was that north-east Fife should be part of the Tayside region. However, Fife retained itself as one region, of which north-east Fife was a part. That change in the original thinking does not seem to have been reflected in the pattern of development since.
In correspondence with the Minister I have sought to show that an integrated local office for north-east Fife, based either at Cupar or St Andrews, would be a practical solution for the Department and would be preferred by every local interest. I stress that it is supported by all the local interests in the area.
The benefits of such a proposal for the clients of the Department need no further emphasis. It has been supported by the trade unions most directly involved. I quote a brief extract from the Fife branch secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association DHSS branch, Mr. Burns, who said:
Thank you for the copy of your letter to Mrs Chalker. May I on behalf of the CPSA members of DHSS Fife congratulate you on your insight, understanding, and recommendations that you have made regarding the DHSS service in the east of Fife. The response from the Society of Civil and Public Servants is also favourable.
Thus, the CPSA representative confirms the favourable response of the society.
The proposal is supported by north-east Fife district council in a practical way, as I shall explain when I talk about accomodation for the proposed office. The district council has supported the proposal on several occasions. As recently as 20 March the chief executive wrote to me:
The need for this integrated office in Cupar has again been brought to my notice this week, when we have been discussing with the Dundee office the question of payments regarding the homeless, and also in connection with arrears of rent and rates.
I find that we require to deal with some three to four DHSS offices in this matter, and again I think this re-emphasises the need for an integrated office in Cupar.
The proposal is also supported by Fife regional council, which has interests much wider than just north-east Fife. It covers the whole of Fife. It is interesting to note that Fife was the only county in Scotland which, on the reorganisation of local government, retained its identity as one regional council.
In a letter dated 2 April from the chief executive of Fife regional council to the controller of the Department of

Health and Social Security in Edinburgh there are a number of useful suggestions about the Department's services in Fife. Item 4 says:
To recommend that the DHSS review the present and proposed administration of their services in North East Fife with the view to the establishment of a single integrated local office within the District which would administer the whole range of local services operated by the Department.
Those are the views of the two local authorities directly concerned—one is Conservative controlled and one Labour controlled. We have heard the trade union view, and the proposal is supported by business men who have legitimate dealings with the DHSS offices.
My hon. Friend the Minister has replied to the arguments in favour of a single integrated local office in north-east Fife and has raised two principal objections—one concerned with viability, and one with cost and accommodation. In her letter to me on 25 November she said:
the social security work load for the district is insufficient to make such an office a viable proposition.
I do not accept that. By my calculation, the electorate that would be served would be equal to or greater than that for three out of the four existing offices in Fife. The basis on which I make that calculation is that regional council wards served by individual offices consist of equal numbers of electors throughout Fife. The potential staffing of an integrated local office would be about 70. That would not mean additional staff, but would be the result of a reallocation of staff among the present offices, many of which are outside the region, and I believe that that could be done without reducing the viability of any of the others.
When I protested about this to my hon. Friend the Minister, she replied with her usual care and courtesy and referred to the population of districts within Fife region. She pointed out, quite accurately, that Fife region has a population of about 340,000, which is divided among the districts—Dunfermline, 125,000; Kirkcaldy, 149,000; and north-east Fife, 66,000. The Kirkcaldy office is very large. Indeed, it covers part of north-east Fife. There are two offices in close proximity, at Cowdenbeath and Dunfermline. If one were to split the Dunfermline district population of 125,000—which is not absolutely precisely to be done, in all fairness, on this boundary allocation—curiously enough, one would get almost exactly the population of north-east Fife district, where I am looking for a single integrated local office.
Also in that letter, however, my hon. Friend went on to say:
It is not possible to be precise without taking a special count of workloads over a fairly lengthy period in the offices concerned, but it is estimated that a North East Fife office would have a staffing level of no more than 50.
I do not imagine that that figure, which was arrived at in that way, will be stated as being the least attractive in terms of the Minister's argument. I accept that that is the genuine assessment of the Department, but I think that, if anything, it is likely to be higher rather than lower than that figure. But, even at that figure, I think that no one has suggested that it would be an unviable office.
The second objection that my hon. Friend raised was the need to maximise the use of the existing offices surrounding the north-east Fife district and to have regard to the control of public expenditure. This is a time of year when I am very tempted to invite my hon. Friend to come and judge for herself. It is a time of year when many people are coming to East Fife. It is an attractive


environment, but one part that is not very attractive is the DHSS office in Leven. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend is clearly aware of that. The office in Leven provides the only genuine integrated local office service in the area, but it is overflowing into the back yard, into temporary accommodation.
The Kirkcaldy Crown office accommodation, by contrast, is admirable, but it shares that with other Government Departments, giving particularly good opportunities for modifications to meet the needs of particular groups within that office.
There is, however, ideal accommodation available in Cupar. I was particularly grateful for the response by North-East Fife district council when I explained to it that I had this difficulty with the Minister, who was arguing about the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation and using existing accommodation to the best advantage. The council wrote to me on 17 December. The chief executive said:
I am pleased to say that the District Council would be most willing to help in this matter, should a decision be reached by DHSS to locate an integrated office in Cupar. There are two possibilities"—
not just one possibility, but two—
of making available accommodation for approximately 70 staff, which I understand to be the number required.
In a concluding paragraph in his letter, which might be of particular interest and encouragement to the Minister, the chief executive said:
I think you may take it that the District Council would not be too difficult about leasing terms for either of these proposals, as the Members with whom I have spoken see this as an employment opportunity, and an opportunity for a very useful Public Service agency in Cupar.
The strength of that argument about a useful public service agency in Cupar is emphasised by the fact that one of the two opportunities for accommodation in Cupar is immediately adjacent to the present area social work office of Fife regional council. One can see obvious benefits flowing from that kind of arrangement.
These factors must be considered along with the alternative additional costs that would apply if the Government's plans were carried through. Let us remember that the Government's plans will involve some additional costs. Many of the offices will be outwith the local telephone charge rate for my constituents, and presumably when the offices telephone my constituents they will pay more than they otherwise would have to pay on their substantial telephone bills. There will be much increased travel costs for constituents, who will no doubt wish to have them reimbursed, and for the Department's staff. There will be a need to maintain—dare I say it?—if not to increase, if the plans go on as they are at present, the provision of caller offices, which would seem largely to neutralise the accommodation and cost argument.
There is one further qualitative point that I should like to make. By and large, I do not get many complaints from constituents about the social security services in my constituency, and I hope that that will long continue to be the case. But there is one office serving the constituency that accounts for practically all the complaints I get—Dundee. When I have visited the manager of the Dundee office I have had the greatest assistance from him, and I believe that that is the experience of those whose cases come specifically to his attention. But he cannot handle all of the cases personally, and there have been too

many occasions on which constituents have found difficulty in that large office in Dundee in getting their cases sympathetically dealt with.
I should like to read a short extract from a letter from Fife regional councillor Tony Jackson, who represents St. Andrews on the regional council. He has been very helpful in putting forward the St. Andrews viewpoint on these matters. He says:
There is strong local resistance to removal of the last remaining DHSS facility in the District. There is even stronger resistance to this facility being placed in Dundee, and Dundee being categorised as the local office for St. Andrews. This resistance is made up of the fact that existing service from Dundee office has proved unacceptable in the past, and has been acknowledged as much in correspondence, and that, despite assurances to the contrary, claimants do in fact frequently have to travel to Dundee in person at their own expense at the moment, and this will only aggravate the situation.
He adds in parenthesis:
I have a number of cases which I should be happy to let members see"—
that is, members of the regional council—
to illustrate the quite unacceptable attitude of the Dundee office to local claimants, who frequently turn to Kirkcaldy in despair of getting help, and are met there with courtesy and kindly service but an inability to act.
It may be nothing more difficult than the problem of city dwellers in Dundee, on the other side of the river Tay—which only in recent memory has been bridged by road transport—communicating with the people who live in north-east Fife and who come from a very different environment, but there is a problem there, and it would be wrong not to bring it to my hon. Friend's attention.
Therefore, I hope that today, or at least on conclusion of the current review, the Minister will announce the acceptance of this sensible proposal for the establishment of a single integrated local office for north-east Fife.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) for his kind remarks at the start of his speech. He has presented fairly and lucidly his proposed solution to the problem of providing an adequate social security local office service to the people of north-east Fife. He has dug deeply into the facts of the situation and, both in correspondence and meetings with me over the past year and in the House today, he has put forward a reasoned and solid argument which I shall ensure is carefully considered before any decision is taken.
The problems that my Department has had to face since 1966 in moving over to an integrated network of all-purpose social security offices are well known to the House. They have been debated many times in relation to individual proposals affecting various parts of the country. They have rarely been solved to the satisfaction of all concerned. Change is often painful, though experience suggests that once a change has been implemented people adjust to new arrangements far more quickly than might have been expected before the change.
We seek to satisfy a number of criteria in drawing up plans for the integration of social security offices in any particular area. My hon. Friend is familiar with them and has examined them in relation to the position in his constituency. I should like to discuss them against the background in north-east Fife.
The main criterion that we have in mind in preparing any integration plan is that the integrated office must be


accessible to those whom it is to serve. The purpose of integration, which is to provide an office service on all aspects of social security to a particular community, would clearly be thwarted if claimants were unable to communicate with the office, by whatever means they chose, without undue difficulty.
I refer to the means of communication because it must not be assumed that claimants invariably conduct their business face to face across the local office counter. The bulk of the work of a local office is conducted by post—a system that is supplemented wherever necessary by visits to claimants in their homes. I note what my hon. Friend said about telephone directories. I do not know whether we can do anything about getting other numbers into the local directories in north-east Fife, but I will take up that matter on his behalf.
Saying that most of the work is conducted by post is not to set aside or belittle the problems that changed arrangements can cause for those who prefer to transact their business in the local office—problems that can be particular trying in country areas where travel is sometimes difficult, time consuming and costly. Accessibility has certainly been borne in mind in the development of the proposed arrangements for north-east Fife by the acceptance of the need to retain a part-time caller office at St. Andrews for as long as it may be justified by demand. That would mean that there would normally be no need for people from north-east Fife to travel to Dundee to make or pursue their claims, unless they found it particularly convenient to do so.
I note what my hon. Friend said about the office at Dundee and some of the problems involved there. I will return to that matter. For the public, the main change resulting from the proposed relocation of work would be that they would be dealing with offices at different addresses from those used now. I take my hon. Friend's point that all steps must be taken to let the public know of any new arrangements that are introduced and of the address to which claims should be sent.
Nor do I overlook the less tangible, but no less important, point made by my hon. Friend that the people of north-east Fife do not like having their affairs dealt with by those north of the Tay. It is certainly no part of the function of my Department to offend local pride, and I sincerely hope that whatever arrangements are finally introduced will not have that effect.
Another criterion that looms large when integration is being planned is the desirability of aligning local office boundaries with local authority boundaries. The provision of social security is so clearly bound up with the provision of social services and local authority housing that any arrangements that facilitate communications between the various agencies involved will contribute materially to the general level of service that can be provided to the individual.
The Department's present proposals do not violate that concept. Liaison with the local authority services from north-east Fife could be perfectly well maintained from Dundee. I should comment that the administration of supplementary benefits for north-east Fife is already based on the Dundee, East integrated local office.
The final and very important criterion of which account has to be taken in developing an integration plan is the need to provide services in the most economical manner possible. We should not be easily forgiven for introducing

new arrangements that led to wasteful expenditure, and I always pay careful attention to the economy aspects of any plan that comes before me.
The search for economy in relation to proposals for integration involves a number of considerations. First, it is clearly incumbent upon us to make the most advantageous use of existing accommodation and to avoid under-utilisation on the one hand and unnecessary redevelopment on the other.
The proposal developed by the Department seeks to make the best possible use of the existing offices surrounding the north-east Fife district, most of which are relatively new. Present calculations indicate that the provision of an ILO in north-east Fife—my hon. Friend has suggested that it should be in Cupar—would result in serious over-provision in the surrounding areas and the possible need for the closure of at least one office.
Closely tied in with that—indeed, the basis from which all calculations have to be made—is the question of work loads and what level of work load warrants separate facilities in any area. The Department's proposals are based on the proposition that the north-east Fife district would not provide a sufficient work load to merit an office of its own without seriously affecting the staffing levels of other offices in the Fife region.
To be more precise, the provision of an ILO in northeast Fife would result in a population of 340,000 being serviced by five offices, of which only one would have a staffing level above 100 and two would have staffing levels of around 50. That would be incompatible with the Department's policy of carrying out local functions in larger units equipped to deal with the full range of social security benefits, and we believe that it would be uneconomical and confusing for the claimant. Local offices must be able to provide a full range of information wherever possible and that is the intention of our plans for the future.
I know that my hon. Friend questions whether the Department's forecasts of the workload in north-east Fife are soundly based and, beyond that, whether the provision of an ILO in the district, even on the basis of the Department's forecasts, would be uneconomical. The balancing of all those factors obviously calls for decisions based on judgment as well as on facts. That is why I am asking that those aspects of the case made by my hon. Friend should be given special attention by the Department's central office in Scotland, to which falls the task of weighing all the views expressed during consultation about the present proposals.
I note that the north-east Fife district council, the Fife regional council, the Civil and Public Services Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants all seers to agree with the proposal outlined by my hon. Friend. That will obviously be taken into account. It is clear that everyone is agreed that there should be a single integrated local office that can cope with the needs of my hon. Friend's constituents. We are arguing not about the policy but about where the local office should be situated.
I have noted my hon. Friend's comments about Dundee, East ILO which covers some of his constituents. I am concerned about what he said about the difficulties that some of his constituents have in claiming supplementary benefit from that office. I hope that my hon. Friend will let me have the letter from the Fife regional council, because the cases in that letter might give us a clue about what is not quite right in that office.
It is important to do our best to give the service required of us and that claimants deserve. I hope that the unofficial strike that is now affecting the payment of supplementary benefit in Dundee will be called off. People who take unofficial action just before Easter can only harm people most in need of the help of the DHSS. I hope that that will be remembered by those taking action.
My hon. Friend has been assiduous in seeking the facts. I understand the case that he has made for an integrated office. He has put the facts to me in a proper and cogent manner. The best assurance that I can give him today is that I shall be no less assiduous in ensuring that the matter is examined thoroughly before any decisions are taken.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. We shall do our best to come to a satisfactory conclusion for all concerned, so that we provide a speedy and better service for people who make claims in north-east Fife.

Charity Commissioners

Mr. William Hamilton: I am glad that I have an additional few minutes to debate the topic that I have chosen. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security for giving me the extra minutes. I know that she is interested in the subject.
I call attention to the tenth report of the then Expenditure Committee entitled "Charity Commissioners and their Accountability." That report was published on 30 July 1975. I was a member of that Committee, which was ably chaired by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). The Committee sat regularly on a weekly basis from 20 January to 12 May 1975.
The Committee took oral evidence on 14 occasions. We visited the two London offices of the Charity Commissioners. In addition, we received written memoranda from 24 organisations and individuals, including the Home Office, the Scottish Office, the Charity Commissioners, the Inland Revenue, the Charity Law Reform Committee, the National Council of Social Service, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the British Legion, the Independent Schools' Joint Committee, religious organisations of all denominations and the Chief Chancery Master—to mention only a few.
I put that on record to show that Select Committees try to make serious studies, in depth, of specific problems. I recall sitting on a Committee with the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate. He will support that view. The Committees are constituted on an all-party basis. In general, they work as teams and strive, frequently with success, to produce unanimous reports and recommendations. Everybody who has watched the Committees at work agrees that their members work hard and diligently, often bringing to bear their own experience in a particular sphere.
The Committee to which I referred eventually produced a report containing 27 recommendations. It is appropriate to begin by quoting the concluding words of the report. Paragraph 135 states:
The sheer numbers of Charities, the assets they command—probably some £2,500 million-£3,000 million and their tax privileges—quite apart from the good they do ensures that they occupy an important position in our society. The

Charities Act of 1960 … has not lived up to all the hopes built upon it, largely because of its failure to grasp the nettle of the definition of Charity.
I emphasise the concluding words of the paragraph, which are:
We are convinced that the nettle must now be grasped and we advocate the adoption of 'purposes beneficial to the community' as the overriding criterion.
Paragraph 136 states:
We believe that this change and the other reforms we recommend can be best dealt with by a new Charities Act which will provide the framework for charitable activities until the end of the century and beyond.
That reference to the lack of a clear and modern definition of what is meant by a charity or what is meant by charitable purposes is the crux of the matter. It is amazing that we still stick to the definition, such as it is, provided in the statute of Elizabeth I of 1601.
In a footnote to the report the Committee produced a modernised version in modern language. The definition of charity under which we are still working is:
The relief of aged impotent and poor people; the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, free schools and scholars in universities, the repair of bridges, ports, pavements, causeways, churches, seabanks, and highways; the education and preferment of orphans; the relief, stock or maintenance of houses of correction; marriages of poor maids; supportation, aid and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen and persons decayed;—
One can look along the corridor for some such people. The definition continues:
the relief or redemption of prisoners or captives, and the aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payment of fifteens, setting out of soldiers and other taxes.
That is the modernised version of the definition of charities under which we still operate.
I put that on record because I do not think that the public understand the basis on which charities work today. Society has changed out of all recognition since 1601–380 years ago—and yet we still blandly use the same definition. However, the courts, according to the report
have interpreted it
that is, the definition—
by extending it by analogy to new purposes as they arise.
That development was accelerated by Lord Macnaghten's judgment in 1891, in the Pemsel case—the Commissioners of Income Tax v. Pemsel—which restated the Elizabethan preamble in modern terms by classifying the purposes of charities under four heads, not three. The first head was the relief of poverty, the second the advancement of education, the third the advancement of religion, and the additional head was other purposes beneficial to the community.
Our Committee went into the historical development of charity law from that time. It was pointed out that in the early 19th century there was great anxiety about the state of charities and the misuse of their funds. That anxiety led to a series of inquiries, culminating in the Charitable Trust Act 1853, which set up a board of Charity Commissioners. After the Second World War, with the considerable growth of ex-Service men's charities and other problems, that development resulted in the establishment of the Nathan committee in 1950, to examine the whole problem again, apart from tax considerations.
Without going into further historical detail, suffice it to say that the present 1960 Charities Act, under which we now operate, was the outcome of the proposals embodied in the Nathan report. The 1960 Act—the consolidation measure—has now operated for more than 20 years and it


was the operation of that Act with which our Committee was concerned. The basic issues, as we saw them, were: first, the sheer magnitude and complexity of the problem; secondly, the part to be played by the Government in encouraging, by fiscal and other means, voluntary effort while at the same time eliminating abuse, or at least reducing it as far as possible; thirdly, the provision of the administrative machinery independent of Government and party politics, while maintaining some degree of public accountability and public confidence; and lastly—probably the most important—the problem of a modern and flexible definition of a charity and charitable purposes. We addressed ourselves to those issues.
We elicited evidence, on which the Minister will probably have up-to-date information, and I shall give the statistics that were given to us in 1974–75. At that time, 115,000 charities were registered with the Charity Commissioners. There was an annual growth rate of 2,500. The total must now be between 140,000 and 150,000 registered charities, with a further 10,000 or so in Scotland, which is not covered by the Charity Commissioners. In addition, thousands of charities are excepted or exempted from registration. They include places of worship, the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London and Durham, colleges such as Eton and Winchester, the independent schools generally, the British Museum and the Church Commissioners. Those are all free from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, though to a greater or a lesser degree they are controlled by other legislation.
The total wealth of these charities is unknown, but in 1974 the estimated annual income was well over £300 million. Repayment of tax to the charities was then estimated to be between £70 million and £75 million a year. All those figures excluded the amount that was exempted from tax on untaxed income coming to the charities from, for example, investment in gilt-edged securities, capital gains, trading profits, and so on. We estimated that the value of the assets of all charities at that time was about £3,000 million.
The administrative machinery for ensuring that those charities act within the law is provided under the 1960 Act by the Charity Commissioners in England and Wales. Since 1960, we normally have three commissioners—the chief commissioner and two others. They are barristers, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested to hear. The chief commissioner is generally a civil servant whose future is behind him.
Some interesting observations on the way in which the Charity Commissioners operate were contained in our report. At that time, the commissioners had a staff of 360, and the cost of running the show was about £1 million in 1975–76. The set-up was politely described by our Committee in paragraph 121 as
a 'quiet backwater', though for certain members of the legal profession it has certain attractions".
We did not say what those attractions were—in the report, anyhow. The report also said of the commissioners that
in living up to their self-imposed image of benevolent family solicitors they have perhaps given too much to their legal duties as opposed to their responsibilities in other spheres".
Again,
They failed to convey to us any impression of dynamism (as opposed to dedication), imagination, innovation or management efficiency".
It is a matter that should concern us that that organisation is deputed by us to look into what is, by any standards, big

business—that is what charity is today—which has amassed cash and assets as a result of the generosity of the public, with huge tax and rate concessions.
Big business of that kind cannot be run as though it were a village shop. Yet that is what is happening now. Many charities are undoubtedly run fairly, honestly and efficiently, but no one can be sure, least of all hon. Members. Of the 115,000 that I quoted, only 8,500 were inspected in 1974. That is about one in 13. What about, the other 12 that got away? There is little or no parliamentary accountability, and little or no accountability to Government.
That brings me to the second of the questions posed earlier, namely, the role of the Government in encouraging voluntary effort, in preventing abuse, and in providing statutory machinery with a degree of freedom from political pressure, yet maintaining elements of public accountability. I shall quote some of the Committee's recommendations in that regard. Recommendation 26 said:
The Home Secretary should answer Parliamentary Questions on Charities and the Charity Commissioners".
The Home Secretary refuses to do that. Recommendation 27 said:
The Home Secretary should have wider powers to make Orders and Statutory Instruments in respect of the Charity Commissioners and Charities
—instruments that would be debatable on the Floor of the House.
Recommendations 23, 24 and 25 relate to the appointment of the chief charity commissioner, the appointment of a standing selection panel to advise the Home Secretary on other appointments, and the creation of a special task force widely representative of outside bodies to carry out local reviews and investigations of particular charities.
Recommendation 15 was that all charities should be brought under the jurisdiction of the newly appointed and constituted Charity Commissioners.
Recommendation 9 was that a charities tribunal, should be established to hear appeals from decisions of the Charity Commissioners and, in certain cases, the Inland Revenue, the cost of that tribunal to be met from a special levy on the registration of each charity.
In the considered view of the Committee these 27 recommendations represented a bold, imaginative attempt to modernise existing administrative machinery, increase its efficiency and extend its accountability.
I turn quickly to the 64,000-dollar question—the definition problem. The Committee engaged in a great deal of cross-examination of witnesses on this issue and much heart searching. Eventually, we provided in recommendation I that all charities should be required to satisfy the Macnaghten test of
purposes beneficial to the community.
We said that charities already registered under any of the other legal requirements—the relief of poverty and the advancement of education and religion—should continue to qualify.
We recommended certain important qualifications on involvement in political activities and education in private fee-paying schools.
It is nonsense for private fee-paying schools—including Eton and Winchester, and Gordonstoun in Scotland—should be regarded as charities and be able to reap enormous tax and rate benefits from the taxpayers and the ratepayer. Children attending those schools are almost


invariably from wealthy families. They are certainly not from families in the bottom quarter of the incomes groupings. For those children to be subsidised by the taxpayer and the ratepayer is an indefensible obscenity.
I shall skip over some of my notes, in view of the time. The gist of the report was the recognition that our charity law was crying out for modernisation, liberalisation and a greater degree of public accountability.
What has happened? The report was produced in July 1975—nearly six years ago. There has been no debate on it. There has been no departmental reply of any kind. The Government have thumbed their nose—I blame the Labour Government, too, because this is not a party matter—not only at the Committee but at all those who gave evidence.
A reply was eventually elicited from the Government by the hon. Member for Drake who was the Chairman of the Committee. That reply was in the form of a written answer on 24 January 1980 at column 315 of Hansard. It is an appalling answer. It states that the Government appreciate the work of the Committee and recognise the importance of its report, but they intend to do precisely nothing. That is to treat a Select Committee of the House with unparalleled contempt. There may be reasons for it, but they have not been produced to the Committee in interim statements or in any other way.
Meanwhile, the Committee had almost foreseen the disgraceful scandal of the Moonies, which has just broken. I shall not quote the exact words, but the Committee indicated that there were many peculiar religious groups. We quoted some examples of family life being threatened by some of theses peculiar groups. Had the Government taken action on our report in 1975, or shortly thereafter, and produced legislation, the Moonies scandal might have been prevented. That matter was well covered by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and other hon. Members in the Easter Adjournment debate on 6 April, as reported in Hansard from column 697 onwards. More than 190 hon. Members of all parties signed an early-day motion calling for the ending of the charitable status of the Moonies organisation following the loss of its libel action against a newspaper.
The carefully considered and forthright judgment of a High Court judge at the end of that six-months trial was followed in a matter of days by what is generally regarded as an ill-considered statement by the Charity Commissioners virtually rejecting out of hand the consequences of what had been said in the High Court. The Charity Commissioners' statement showed that they did not seem to comprehend the law that they were supposed to operate. The proven ignorance and imcompetence, not to say arrogance, of the Charity Commissioners were such that nothing short of their comprehensive dismissal will satisfy the House and opinion in the country.
I hope that the Government will decide to come to grips with this matter—to grasp the nettle, as the Committee said—all the more so now that they are increasingly committed to replacing State provision in education, health, housing and other areas with voluntary effort. I think that many hon. Members, and people in the country, regard it as vital to clean out this stable. The legislative programme for the next year or two years will be light. The

time for action in this area is now appropriate. I hope that the Government will be more forthcoming today than they have been in the past few weeks.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): It was timely that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) secured an Adjournment debate for today to refer to this subject, particularly in the light of the considerable public attention and criticism that have been focused on charity law in recent weeks. I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify the Government's position on some of the issues that have been raised.
I cannot, within the time available, or, indeed, within the rules of order, refer to proposals by the Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman served, that call for legislation. I appreciate that the Committee's report was published in July 1975. As the hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged, nearly four years remained to the Labour Government to indicate their response to it before the general election.
The Conservative Government came into office in May 1979. We, at any rate, went public with a statement of our intentions in January 1980. We want to give careful consideration to the recommendations of that Committee in the light of the other policies of the Government, and to the recommendations of Lord Goodman's committee, which was set up by the National Council of Social Services.
It is worth referring in greater detail to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave in January 1980. He said:
The Government recognise that charitable trusts occupy a special position in our law and that special privileges attach to charitable status. We believe that the concept of charity in the legal sense remains valid and useful since it both reflects and encourages a spirit of benefaction and public service whose continuance is of great important to society. The Government do not consider that there is at present a need for changes in the law on charitable status or in the administrative practices relating to charities. We do, however, set great value on the contribution made by voluntary organisations and volunteers to the provision of a wide range of services and facilities that are essential to the well-being of society. We are considering how best we may, within the present financial restraints, encourage the development of the voluntary sector as a whole, and in that context we are paying particular attention to the Goodman committee's recommendations relating to fiscal matters."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 316.]
I do not think that that can be dismissed as a wholly negative approach to the problems of charities in these difficult days.
The Expenditure Committee's report contained 27 recommendations, and I shall refer to some of them. I shall say something about those that have been highlighted in the recent controversy about the Unification Church, the Moonies, notably the definition of charitable status and the respective powers of the Charity Commission and of the Government to prevent abuse in the general area of charity law.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the law that is applicable goes back to the Statute of Uses, the statute of the first Queen Elizabeth, and indeed before that. I understand that that was a declaratory statute of the existing common law. Its modern statement is that of Lord Macnaghten.
It may be fairly said that the present law of charity is founded upon the principle of recognising certain sorts of activity. The four heads of charity are trusts for the relief of poverty, for the advancement of education, for the advancement of religion and for other purposes beneficial


to the community. These are recognised as being in principle for the public benefit. Any activity within these categories that is not carried on primarily for private profit or for the advantage of those who conduct it may be accepted as a charity and attract the special privileges attached to charitable status, principally those of exemption from the rules against perpetual trusts and from most forms of direct taxation.
Trusts for the relief of poverty or the advancement of religion or education are considered to be intrinsically charitable unless there is relevant evidence of illegality or harm to the community. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the thoroughness with which the Expenditure Committee went into these difficult matters. It is not by any means an adverse comment on the quality of the work of a Committee if the Government of the day do not find it practicable or necessary to give effect to its recommendations.
The Expenditure Committee recommended that in future the main head of charity should be a requirement to satisfy the test of
purposes beneficial to the community
and that charities formerly admitted under the other three heads should continue to qualify only if they satisfied the main criterion. It is difficult to see the distinction between this recommendation and the present position by which an educational or religious body which can be proved to be contrary to public policy would not be granted charitable status. The problem lies in the proof and the definition of "beneficial to the community", about which the Expenditure Committee did not give guidance, and this difficulty applies more to the religious head than to the others.
The hon. Gentleman referred to trusts for the advancement of education and condemned in rather extreme language the extension of charitable status to public schools. We have traditionally accepted in Britain that the object of the advancement of education is rightly considered to be charitable.

Mr. William Hamilton: Eton?

Mr. Mayhew: No doubt that is because it is in the interests of the community. I do not see why that advantage should be withheld from the public schools, where the quality of education is in the main unquestionably excellent and where many scholarships, bursaries and other awards are available for children from families that could not afford to pay fees. They have been available for a long time and I guess that more are available now than ever before.
The Committee expressed particular anxiety that religious cults which it regarded as obscure and sometimes dangerous could be registered as charities; but it is hard to see how its proposed new definition would strengthen the hands of the Charity Commissioners and the courts in dealing with them, as it hoped, without the setting of more specific criteria. But which criteria? The problem was set out best perhaps by Mr. Ben Whitaker, who submitted a minority report to that of the Goodman committee. He said:
Deciding which religious practices are too anti-social to be allowed charitable benefits is an invidious task.… the satisfactory test of a religion in this context poses superhuman problems: what law court or human agency empowered to demarcate charitable status is competent to judge the validity of a religion or the genuineness of a new guru or claimant to be a

new Messiah? What would have been the verdict of an early Charity Commission on Jesus Christ, or the first Christians or the Inquisition?
That rather concisely describes the difficulties with which we are faced.
In addition to whether the purposes of a religious movement can be made to fit specified criteria to meet the "beneficial to the community" requirement, there is whether the actual conduct of the movement is in accordance with those objects or whether it has significantly harmful features. This is, I think, the most pertinent point in relation to the Unification Church. The Expenditure Committee expressed concern about the possible abuse of charitable status but did not make any radical recommendations for change Rather, it proposed the tightening up of current procedures.
I take up the issue on which the hon. Gentleman concluded his speech. He talked about the carefully considered judgment of a High Court judge. As I understand it, that is an inaccurate way of expressing what has recently taken place in the libel action to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That case was tried not by a High Court judge, but by a jury. The jury attached a rider to its verdict relating to the charitable status of the Moonies, or the Church of Unification.
I should say in the short time that the hon. Gentleman has left available to me that the Attorney-General, as the protector of charitable interests, has important functions in the prevention of abuses of charitable status. He has powers to institute legal proceedings to protect the interests of a charity generally and to appear in proceedings where the interests of a charity generally may be affected, or where there is an appeal against an order of the Charity Commissioners.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is currently considering what action, if any, it might be appropriate for him to take in relation to the Unification Church. This is an important issue, which has recently been made public. It is something that the public should know, because they are understandably concerned with the opinion expressed by the jury at the end of a long case.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the appointment of the Charity Commissioners. The Government find that there are obvious attractions in the recommendation that the chief charity commissioner's post should be drawn from a much wider area than now. The Committee considered the position of the other commissioners. The Government will also consider that. However, there is an obvious attraction, at least to the first of those recommendations about the chief charity commissioner.
I cannot cover all the points made by the Expenditure Committee. I hope that I have touched on the Government's attitude to many of the most relevant. We shall, of course, carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman has said today.

Petrol and Oil Charges (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Stephen Ross: I apologise to the Minister of State for involving him in the affairs of the Isle of Wight on the second day in succession. I am grateful to him for what he did for us yesterday. I hope that he will have some words of hope for us today.
I dislike having to raise the subject of petrol and oil prices on the Isle of Wight as I realise that some of my


remarks will seem to be unfair and probably hurtful to the small retailers on the island whose annual throughput of petrol sales is below 100,000 gallons—in many cases it is below 50,000 gallons—and who are finding making a living hard enough as it is.
In many ways, I regret the outlawing of resale price maintenance as I have always felt that it is fair to pay a reasonable margin for a good service, provided that it is kept under adequate supervision. However, we are not in that ball game today. I have an overriding responsibility to all my constituents. I know from my mail bag that the vast majority of them are now thoroughly frustrated and annoyed by the latest increases and the lack of any meaningful competition among retailers.
There are just over 50 petrol retailers on the island, all in private ownership or management. Therefore, no filling stations are operating under the direct control of any of the principal refiners, nor are there any run by the well-known national chains such as Heron. It is constantly claimed that there are too many retailers. That is no doubt true, but few, if any, have closed in recent years.
I have lived on the Isle of Wight for nearly 30 years, but it is only in the last five years or so that its prices have varied so greatly from those on the immediate mainland. Looking back through my files, I see that I first raised that subject with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in May 1977 when he was Minister for Prices and Consumer Protection. I asked for an inquiry. I did not get far. I tried again in May 1978, but I was once more fobbed off. The local consumers association was also turned down by the then Price Commission.
At Easter 1978, I was particularly incensed by the action of most of the Shell retailers on the island in failing to pass on to their customers a 2p refund over that holiday period. Only two or three garages at most took up the offer. Some time after that, there was a period when prices rose again on the mainland and matters evened out. However, that was only for a short period. Prices at some garages on the mainland were even slighly above those on the island.
However, over the last nine months, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that it would appear that we now pay the highest prices in western Europe, with the exception of Italy. At the moment, four-star petrol on the island is priced at £1·66 or £1·67 per gallon. As far as I have been able to discover, no outlet's price is below those figures. One garage confirmed this morning that the price was £1·70 for four-star. Every time I go home at the weekend, the prices seem to be higher.
Last autumn there was some local press publicity. I pay credit to the Weekly Post which pursued the issue and which lost much advertising for so doing. There was a variation of up to 5p per gallon. It was curious that the small country stations with the low throughput were charging the least. The stations in main road positions, some with gallonages estimated at around 350,000 per annum or more, refused to budge until suddenly last November one of the larger stations cut its prices by about 10p. Unfortunately, that relief was short lived and the prices are now level with the rest.
Pressure has no doubt been applied by people in the trade to stand together. There is no question but that those

who have made real reductions in recent years have received threats relating to other aspects of their business, such as the supply of spare parts, motor repairs and so on.
Last autumn I took up the matter again with the Director of Fair Trading, but he said that, under the Competition Act 1980, I had first to satisfy him that the firms to be investigated had an annual turnover of over £5 million, or a 25 per cent. share of the relevant market. That ruled me out straight away. When this year's Budget added another 20p to our misery, I decided to contact the chairmen of the four main companies which supply petrol to the Isle of Wight—BP, Shell, Esso and Texaco. All have now replied.
Being a good Liberal, I shall deal first with the reply from Sir David Steel, which is typical. He said:
The retailer is entirely responsible for setting his own petrol prices. He does this by reference to his selling expenses, level of local competition and his income requirements. As there are quite a number of small volume sites on the island which service an important sector of the rural community, you will appreciate that the retailer requires a reasonable margin of profit to continue to operate as a viable business.
I understand that. I have constantly defended the smaller retailers on the island. However, what is that margin of profit? According to my information, it is about 14p or 15p per gallon. The garage which is charging £1·70, must be getting more than that.
BP's wholesale price, expressed in gallonage, on the Isle of Wight is made up as follows: the petrol price is 69·3p, and Excise duty is 62·83p, making a total of 132·13p. When VAT is added at 15 per cent. it comes to 152p per gallon. That is the price which the retailer pays to the wholesaler for the petrol to be supplied.
It is said that the cost of bringing petrol to the island is less than 0·5p per gallon. I believe that in fact it is substantially less than that. There are variations between the main companies. Esso has recently been available at 2p per gallon less than BP or Shell, but that has not been reflected at the pumps.
In an interesting article on 27 March, in Now! magazine, the average price of four-star petrol in the United Kingdom was quoted as 152p. I reckon that it has risen by about 2p to 3p since then. Last Saturday the price in Northern Ireland was 155p. In the Isle of Man it was 146p. No wonder my constituents are incensed. Comparable prices in Europe are quoted as follows: Germany, 134p; Southern Ireland, 142p; France, 154p; Norway, 158p; Denmark, 161p; and Italy, 174p. The price in only one country is above ours and we are rapidly catching up with it.
The pump price of light fuel oil on the island is 171p, whereas the Freight Transport Association, in a press release dated 10 April, quotes an average throughout the United Kingdom of 161p. Even that is vastly higher than that in other neighbouring countries. Perhaps that figure relates to commercial prices and not to the pump price, but the price of light fuel oil on the island is at least 5p or 6p higher than it is elsewhere.
Our situation is also different from other rural parts of the country where higher prices for petrol are faced—I suspect that the Minister's constituency is one—because residents can generally drive about 20 miles down a motorway or a good road and fill up at a much lower rate. However, with our excessive car ferry charges, it costs us about £15 for that privilege, so that is not worth while.
Let me quote some typical letters and petitions that I have received recently. I had a letter yesterday from a Mr. Belton:
I have just been over to the Island… I write to uphold your protest at the price of petrol there. On the average, it seems to be about 15p a gallon higher than the mainland; a great imposition, when the island is so hard hit by unemployment.
Another gentleman wrote on 25 March:
I have decided it would be a good idea to express my feelings regarding the price of petrol on our Island.
I feel we, the motoring public, are being exploited. We are over a barrel as to what we pay. It is Tay our price or go without.'. We have not got the choice to go anywhere else, be it the next county or whatever.
He then quotes figures from Preston and Manchester.
Another letter reads:
I am a pensioner of 66 years old and came to live out the rest of my life on this beautiful island, having done very well for my country and, I hope, been a good example to some over the years.
My wife and I have never asked for anything in our lives and have been thrifty enough to manage a bungalow together for our finale, but enough is enough. We are sick to death of the petrol prices in this island.
I had a petition from the nurses:
We the undersigned appreciate there are Whitley Council conditions regarding mileage allowances and while this may be adequate for the majority of Health Authority employees working on the mainland we here on the Isle of Wight feel it inadequate to cover the higher petrol prices i.e. 10p to 12p more a gallon.
Therefore we would be most grateful if you could investigate the reason for such an anomaly.
So it goes on. We are an island with above average living costs and a lower wage structure overall. We deserve better.
What can be done? I shall be voting against the increases—the latest imposition under the Budget—in the Finance Bill Committee, but that is not the object of my debate. Even if we are successful in reducing some of the increases, that will not alter the imbalance. First, I ask the bigger retailers in my constituency in top trading situations to cut their margins, as others have been doing in different parts of the country, if only by a few pence. Tourists, on whom we so much rely, will not bring their cars to the island if we continue down the present path, and we shall all suffer as a result. If the retailers refuse, the Government must help the consumer. The Price Commission is no more. It also appears that the Director of Fair Trading's role is very restricted. However, surely somewhere within the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 or the Competition Act 1980 there is a provision to enable us to deal with the situation. My constituents are anxious to know the answer.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): I congratulate the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on his initiative in bringing the present subjects for debate before the House. Representing a rural constituency, I appreciate the anxiety that some of his constituents must be feeling about petrol prices. I also appreciate the importance of fuel oil prices and supplies to those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are dependent, directly or indirectly, on the horticulture industry. My understanding of the Isle of Wight's problems was valuably helped only yesterday when I paid an interesting and instructive visit to the island in the hon. Gentleman's company.
The hon. Gentleman has raised two topics—rural petrol prices and fuel oil prices. They are perhaps best considered separately.
First, dealing with petrol, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's concern is that the typical level of petrol prices on the Isle of Wight is far too high. He has clearly spelt out what he means. A current price of £1·67 per gallon has been mentioned, at a time when the national average is around £1·53 or £1·54. Again, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. The price in my constituency is also substantially higher than the national average.
I know that hon. Members from other parts of the country, not least from Scotland, have also been worried about the disparity between rural and urban petrol prices. It might help their understanding, as well as the hon. Gentleman's, if I describe how petrol retail prices are determined.
At about 90 per cent. of all sites—more in rural areas—the petrol retail price is determined by the retailer and not by the supplying oil company. Although I do not have the precise figure, I believe that on the Isle if Wight an even higher proportion of petrol prices are set by the retailer than on average. High pump prices seen in rural areas mainly reflect high retail margins. Sir David Steel mentioned that in his letter to the hon. Gentleman. The high retail margins in turn reflect high unit costs, as well as the absence of the intense competition seen in urban areas.
The existence of high retail margins in rural areas is important, and I should like to elaborate on it. In particular, it does not automatically mean that rural garages get higher profits than urban garages. This is because the economics of petrol retailing are largely affected by the volume of sales achieved by a particular garage. The typical garage in a rural area will have a very much lower volume of sales per year than a large urban self-service site, and, at the same time, the small rural garage may in some respects have higher costs—for example, because it is an attended site and not a self-service. What this means is that the small rural and urban garage owner must compensate for his higher costs and smaller volume of sales by means of a higher retail margin per gallon sold. The main source of rural urban petrol retail price disparities is the difference in retail margin.
There are also differences in the wholesale prices charged by the oil companies to small rural and large urban sites. As I have implied, and contrary to popular belief, these differences are generally comparatively small and they arise in various ways. At the wholesale level, independent retailers are charged for their petrol supplies according to the supplying company's basic "schedule" price with certain adjustments. The adjustments are the standing rebate, the zonal premium and the small load premium.
The standing rebate is a discount that the particular garage may be able to negotiate off the schedule price for the duration of its supply contract. A high throughput garage in an urban area may be expected to secure a rather larger rebate than a small rural one. The zonal premium is payable where the garage is located outside the "inner zone" and makes a part recovery of the extra costs of deliveries to rural areas. The oil companies emphasise that they by no means cover their costs by what is currently charged. The small load premium is payable where the particular garage is unable to take delivery of a full tanker load. When I met the petroleum industry advisory committee on 26 March, I took the opportunity to ask about the zonal premium and the small load premium. The companies present confirmed that they by no means fully


recover the costs to which I have referred. The zonal premium, in particular, I understand has been unchanged for many years.
A further source of price differences at the wholesale level is "selective price support", or temporary reductions in the wholesale price allowed by the supplying oil company to enable particular retail sites, often in urban areas, to meet intense competition at the retail level. Typically, however, these price differences at the wholesale level amount to only 3p to 4p per gallon, so they contribute only a minor part of the overall difference between rural and urban petrol prices.
The hon. Member, for example, has quoted Isle of Wight petrol prices as around 13p or 14p above the national average. I know that he is not satisfied that the petrol retail margins which are apparently achieved on the Isle of Wight generally reflect the economics of supply. There have been suggestions that a cartel may be operating on the island at the retail level, with the objective of keeping the price of petrol artificially high. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading has had complaints to this effect and would be prepared to investigate those complaints if appropriate evidence were brought before it.
Allegations of a cartel among petrol retailers on the Isle of Wight must be handled by the Office of Fair Trading, but no investigation can be made without documented evidence that specific violations, within the terms of reference of the relevant competition legislation—the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the Competition Act 1980 or the Fair Trading Act 1973—are taking place. The adequacy of legal powers available to the Office of Fair Trading is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have, of course, pursued that line. The trouble seems to be that under the Competition Act 1980 only larger fish can be investigated—those with turnovers of £5 million or more, or where it can be shown that they have more than a quarter of the market. That is what I understand from the letter that I received from the Director General of Fair Trading last autumn when I took up the matter with him. That possibility is thefore ruled out. If there is a suggestion that he is prepared to look at other avenues, I should, of course, be very interested.

Mr. Gray: I think that the best thing that I can do is to seek further advice from my right hon. Friend on how the hon. Gentleman might pursue the matter. I am perfectly happy to do that if the hon. Gentleman would like me to.
I come now to another subject which I know is of great importance to the hon. Member's constituents, namely, fuel prices to horticulture. I understand that the hon. Member raised the matter of unfair competition from Dutch horticulturists during oral questions this morning, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been taking every opportunity to press for EEC action on this to be completed urgently.
For much of last year we heard complaints from United Kingdom purchasers of heavy fuel oil that the price that they were paying was substantially more than the price paid for fuel oil by competitors across the Channel. An important reason for this disparity was the low fuel oil price last year on the Rotterdam spot market, which helped

to bring down fuel oil prices in those EEC countries in which the inland prices are influenced in one way or another by the spot price. The United Kingdom, by contrast, as the NEDC energy pricing task force report pointed out, is relatively independent of the influence of Rotterdam.
This means that United Kingdom fuel oil prices do not necessarily match those in other EEC countries at any particular time, though over time the differences tend to balance out. Since last autumn, I am glad to say, the United Kingdom heavy fuel oil price has for most of the time been very much in line with, or indeed below, the price elsewhere in the EEC. This remains so now, when the United Kingdom duty-exclusive price, which is of particular relevance to horticulturists, is in fact very low, and substantially lower than the price that would have to be paid for imports from the spot market. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has nevertheless stressed to the oil companies that he expects their prices, over time, to be competitive by international standards.
A recent source of worry to Isle of Wight interests has been the lack of supplies of medium or heavy fuel oil, which are generally considerably cheaper than the gas oil and light fuel oil which are supplied to the island. This is a commercial matter for the oil companies and their customers. I understand that many of the customers' boiler installations are technically incapable of burning heavy fuel oil—which requires heated and lagged storage as well as special burners—and that the oil companies lack dedicated medium fuel oil or heavy fuel oil storage facilities on the island. But I also understand that some of the companies would be prepared to supply to the island by tanker and ferry if their customers judged it worth while to pay the extra delivery costs and to make the necessary investment in boilers and storage tanks in order to take advantage of the price differential compared with light fuel oil or gas oil. This is, I stress, a commercial matter for the oil companies and their customers.
As I conclude I should like to emphasise two points about the price which United Kingdom horticulturists pay for their fuel oil. The first is that they are already allowed a full rebate on that duty which they pay on fuel oil—the rate is 3·5p per gallon. Though this is strictly a matter for my colleagues at the Treasury, they will forgive me if I say that there is quite simply no scope for a larger duty rebate to be made to United Kingdom horticulturists than they receive already.
That brings me to the second point, for some might ask why fuel oil prices to horticulturists should not be subsidised. This is emphatically not the answer. In the long term we must pay economic prices for fuel. Indeed, as the hon. Member heard this morning, this is why the Government have been pressing the European Commission so hard to take steps to end the preferential gas tariff for Dutch horticulturists.
I have great sympathy with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has so clearly spelt out. A high price for petrol seems to be charged on the Isle of Wight. I regret that this does not come within the scope of my Department. Therefore, I cannot be more constructive in my reply to the hon. Gentleman. However, as I indicated earlier, in view of the representations that he has made, I shall be happy to undertake discussions with my right hon. Friend to see whether any other avenue is open to the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter.

Space Programme

Mr. David Atkinson: I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to discuss Britain's future role in space research and technology. I regret that I cannot claim any credit for being on the ball, in view of the topicality of this subject following America's great success this week in achieving the maiden flight of the first re-usable manned spaceship—the shuttle—which represents such an exciting next step in man's evolution.
I have attempted to raise this subject since last July. The House has not debated it for some time—not since the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised it in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill in July 1973. The fact that the House is debating the subject now, merely as a result of a ballot on the eve of a recess after eight years, epitomises the attitude of successive Governments to one of the new technologies with the greatest potential.
Such a lack of interest has meant, as with so much else in our nation's recent past, that we have allowed ourselves to be overtaken in disciplines in which we were once pre-eminent. Other nations are now reaping an earlier and therefore greater benefit than we are in terms of employment opportunities, skills and standards of living.
That attitude was well defined by the right hon. Sir Philip Sassoon, Bt, MP, who was the Under-Secretary of State for Air in 1934. He wrote to the British Interplanetary Society as follows:
We follow with interest any work that is being done in other countries on jet propulsion, but scientific investigation into the possibilities has given no indication that this method can be a serious competitor to the airscrew-engine combination.
We do not consider that we should be justified in spending any time or money on it ourselves.
That was four years after Frank Whittle applied for his first patent. Regrettably, it required a world war to produce a U-turn in favour of developing the world's first successful jet engine.
Throughout the world mankind has benefited dramatically from space research and technology. Today, remote sensing satellites locate mineral deposits, oil and gas fields, dam sites for hydro-power, water in deserts, pollution, shoals of fish, and diseased crops, and they also determine crop yields. Space technology has led to new industrial and managerial disciplines and efficiencies, the highest of skills, superior quality controls, safety evaluations and better manpower training techniques. It encourages decentralisation, diversification, smaller industrial units, reduced obsolescence rates, and the increased leisure opportunities that have resulted from the robot replacement of manpower. It has resulted in the development of new materials with domestic applications and in the development of microprocessors and telematics. Meteosat weather forecasting leads to savings in fertilisers, the treatment of trees, hailstone and frost forecasts and the better use of manpower in agriculture, construction, transport, trade, manufacturing, mining and tourism.
Radio astronomy has led to breast cancer detection. Space research broadens international participation and sharing and encourages the easier handling of questions of jurisdiction, boundaries and property rights, both on earth and in space. The rigour of manned flight in space has led to many invaluable discoveries that are advantageous to

health on earth. For our participation in all this no one can complain that the British people spend too much on space research. We spend a total of £50 million a year, which includes the sum of about £37 million that is spent by my hon. Friend's Department.
The questions that face us today are whether these figures are too small to be meaningful, whether we are making the right investments and whether we are making the best use of the opportunities available, given that space is still one of the world's most employment-intensive industries. Those questions are particularly relevant now that Ariane and the space shuttle are reducing the cost of space flight by a factor of 10 at a time when so much else is rising in price. I imagine that the Government expected the Central Policy Review Staff—the Think Tank—to consider those questions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last July that it was to examine Britain's space programme and the opportunities open to us.
That was probably the first positive policy statement on space to be made by any British Government since the establishment of the European Space Agency—ESA—-in 1975 as a single body to conduct the complete range of European space activities for exclusively peaceful purposes. According to The Daily Telegraph of, I believe 16 January 1981, the Think Tank has reported. However, its report has not been published.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be forthcoming in his reply today. In particular, I hope that we shall learn that the first conclusion that the Think Tank has come to is to confirm that principle that European collaboration in space will achieve more than the sum of individual efforts, including our own, even though such a recommendation will, according to an article in The Economist in July last year, fly in the face of a strong lobby within my hon. Friend's Department which favours an independent British programme.
It must be cheaper and more sensible for Britain to remain fully committed to such a co-operative effort than to go it alone. Even so, should we, as I hope, confirm Britain's allegiance to Europe, we shall not find that the ESA is the optimistic, confident and united organisation that it was six years ago. Western Europe today appears to be indecisive and in some disarray in deciding what it wants to achieve in space, and how it is to proceed. Unilateral and bilateral initiatives by member States, contrary to the ESA convention, threaten European space co-operation and Europe's ability to compete.
Indifference towards the ESA's financing saps the agency's energy and distracts its staff from more constructive tasks. Contributions to it from member States are anomalous. France refuses to ratify the ESA convention and is currently developing its own telecommunications satellite, thus putting the ESA's programme at risk by competing with it.
France and Germany have withdrawn their support from the ESA's L-SAT plan for direct television broadcasting satellites in favour of their own project. There is no doubt that should Britain decide to go it alone it will almost certainly mean that the ESA will become a second Euratom sacrificed to national ambitions.
As Mr. Roy Gibson who retired last year as the director general of ESA, said in his final report to the ESA council:
The damage that this Franco-German initiative has caused to European space co-operation … will need a number of


constructive Community decisions to restore the optimistic atmosphere we enjoyed in the first years following the signature of the ESA convention".
It is in the making of those "constructive Community decisions" that Britain should now be taking a leading and fruitful role. We can do this by appreciating, first, that Europe has come a long way in the short time in which it has been in the business of space research and development collaboration and is today strongly placed to take advantage of immense and growing opportunities.
The failure of ELDO to gell together a successful European launcher capability in the 1960s—let us never forget that it was not Britain's Blue Streak first-stage rocket that failed—is now history, as a result of the comparative success of the Ariane launcher programme, not withstanding its abortive LO2 flight last year. The success of the Metosat and the OTS communications projects testifies to the ESA's ability to develop application satellites.
The European communication satellite programme is now in formal existence to make available to Europe's postal, telecommunications and broadcasting administrations satellite links capable of carrying much of the inter-European telephone, telegraph and telex traffic, and of transmitting Eurovision programmes. The agency is now ready to implement a decision to place three MAREC maritime communication satellites into service to improve ship-to-shore communications as part of the global INMARSAT programme. Perhaps the most exciting project to date is that ESA's re-usable manned spacelab can now be placed in the American shuttle, thus ensuring Europe's presence in the new era of manned space flights in the future, which was heralded this week.
Today the need is to concentrate the minds of European member States on how the ESA will keep up the momentum following the completion of its Ariane and spacelab programmes and especially how it can turn its expertise in research and development to new advantage in administering the fulfilment of those fast-growing commercial opportunities that promise such a high rate of return on investment and direct consumer benefits.
I note that Mr. Peter Hickman, the managing director of British Aerospace dynamics space division, has urged the Think Tank to accept that Britain needs to keep its European links if it is to exploit a world market for communications satellites which will be worth thousands of millions of pounds over the next decade.
The energy crisis suggests the most urgent need for a full-scale European solar power satellite technology programme. That is clearly an appropriate investment opportunity for a joint venture with private industry involving both oil taxes and profits. That would ensure Britain's continued leadership in energy after the oil runs out. In that respect British Aerospace—freed now from the dead hand of nationalisation—has the expertise and capabilities necessary to play a leading European role.
Following the success of Meteosat, that suggests a worthwhile European earth resources programme which can detect and exploit new reserves of gas, coal and oil, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) advocated in his report to the Assembly of the Western European Union last July. Great potential exists for the development of a European low-cost small shuttle, using existing technology, for manned missions to

supply orbiting space stations and service satellites. Great commercial benefits are to be gained from the realisation of advantages of zero gravity and the benefits of a vacuum for the manufacture in orbit of very large and pure crystals, metal alloys, glass lenses, vaccines and drugs.
I welcome ESA's decision to co-operate with the United States in sending a probe to analyse Halley's comet on its next approach in 1986. That will be a European mission with United States help, rather than the other way round. Irrespective of the gains to science that will be made, that project will gain for the ESA and its members an enhanced prestige in industrial ability, which will be invaluable in helping us to sell high technology abroad. It is essential that Britain plays a full part in the venture. To do otherwise would be to throw away a business opportunity that we cannot afford to lose.
Those are all goals that should claim the attention not only of space agencies but of Governments and industry. Indeed, today they are sensed, at least, if not always understood, by the broad spectrum of public opinion.
In this short debate I have attempted to point out that space technology has proved of great benefit to mankind and promises future opportunities on a dramatic scale. I have tried to emphasise that the European Space Agency has shown that Western Europe has a role to play, has the capability to play it, and is prepared to co-operate. The closest possible collaboration remains the key to success. I find it very sad that the Council of Ministers of the agency last met over four years ago. According to a reply that I received from my hon. Friend in February, there are at present no plans for a further meeting.
As Europe now stands uncertain how its future role in space should be played, let us accept that Britain has the technological, commercial and diplomatic skills with which to take a lead once again for the future benefit of the whole of mankind. That should be our role in space today.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for his interesting and timely remarks, and I congratulate him on choosing this subject. He has given me the opportunity to explain the Government's view of Britain's role in space at, as he said, an important time for our space industry. I listened with great interest to what he had to say. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to him that there is indeed no lack of interest on our part, nor of activity.
It was for that reason that the Government nominated my fellow Under-Secretary of State for Industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall)—to take responsibility and to set up an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate policy. As my hon. Friend will know, it is my fellow Under-Secretary who carries the particular responsibility for this matter and who would, therefore, normally have replied to the debate. However, it is perhaps a mark of interest that he is currently in America discussing common interests in space matters with various American organisations and has been attending the historic launch of the space shuttle. I know that he will be very sorry to have missed this opportunity to contribute to the debate on a subject in which he is so keenly interested. He would certainly have been much


more expert than I shall be in replying to it. In the time available I hope to be able to cover a number of the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
First, I am sure that the whole House would, if it were here on this last day of term, wish to join me in paying a tribute to the magnificent achievement and immaculate precision and teamwork involved in the successful launch and completion of the shuttle mission. It is yet another of the marvels of our age.
With that fresh in our minds, this is a good time to consider how Britain is set to take advantage of the challenges and commercial opportunities now rapidly unfolding in space. That is why, as I say, my hon. Friend's choice today is so opportune. Communications are the most obvious example, where for some years international post and telephone authorities have been using Intelsat satellites to pass long-distance telephone traffic between large Goonhilly-type stations. But technology has now advanced to the point at which ground stations can be very much smaller and individual factories or even homes can have direct access to satellites via personal stations situated on their own property. As the capabilities of electronics expand into the office or home of the future—for example, as my hon. Friend indicated, word processors, data and facsimile transfer, computer-to-computer links, teleconferencing and other services—the potential for using satellites to support these services and provide the communication links is growing rapidly.
There is considerable private interest in providing such services, and British Telecom has recently announced that it plans to provide a specialised satellite communications service to business users. In America several privately financed satellites are already providing business and television services. With the hoped-for reduction in the cost of launchers, we can expect even greater advances in services and value for money. Direct broadcasting, telephone links, electronic mail and mobile communication to ships, aircraft and land vehicles are among those developments.
The real significance of a space programme lies not just in having the satellite but in the business represented by the services that it can provide. My hon. Friend gave many examples. The United Kingdom has carefully directed the majority of its limited research and development resources into space science and telecommunications. The United Kingdom's participation in the science programmes of the European Space Agency is complemented by arrangements with other nations. A long period of collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is a prime example. It extends back to the launch of the United Kingdom's Ariel I satellite in 1962.
United Kingdom scientists have been deeply involved with three NASA science missions currently in orbit. The first, the international ultra-violet Explorer satellite, is a joint NASA-ESA-United Kingdom mission, conceived in the United Kingdom. It has been an outstanding success and is still making important discoveries through astronomical observations in the ultra-violet part of the spectrum. The second, Nimbus 7, is an atmospheric climate satellite, in which the United Kingdom has played a major role. The third mission is the joint Solar Maxima mission, an experiment to observe the sun at the peak of its sunspot cycle. This mission was seen by the Prime Minister on her recent visit to NASA's Goddard space flight centre.
The next NASA mission to be launched is the infra-red satellite, which is a NASA-Netherlands-United Kingdom joint mission planned for launch in 1982. The United Kingdom is providing the ground station for that mission at the SRC's Rutherford and Appleton laboratories at Chilton. Other missions in earth observation and astronomy are planned jointly with NASA for the rest of the decade.
Other opportunities for space science are also under review and include possible collaborative projects with Germany, Japan and India. The current and topical example of such joint scientific and technological studies is the memorandum of understanding with the Indian Government, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends to sign during her current visit to India.
In technology, British Aerospace is the prime contractor for all the European Space Agency's communications programmes, including the orbital test satellite, which is being used in important demonstration projects for future services such as I have mentioned. That will lead into a European regional telecommunications system, based on the ECS series of satellites, which are also primed by British Aerospace.
The spread of capability in British industry is reflected by the current early studies for an ESA large satellite in which British Aerospace and Marconi are involved in the platform and payload respectively. In the light of those spectacular developments, we felt last year that a full review of the United Kingdom's space activities was called for to ensure that British industry was given the maximum encouragement to exploit the substantial commercial opportunities that are in prospect.
That is why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced to the House on 11 July last year that the Government had asked the Central Policy Review Staff to undertake a study of space activities in the United Kingdom. It was to look at the way in which the various departmental interests are co-ordinated and at the national and international developments and opportunities for our space industry.
My hon. Friend referred to the CPRS study. The report has been received, but it is confidential advice to Ministers and there is no intention of publishing it. However, I can tell him that it looked at the sort of actions that industry and Government need to take if the United Kingdom is to share in what promises to be a large and expanding business. It also concluded that European collaboration in space would achieve more than the sum of individual national efforts. Therefore, it recommended that the United Kingdom should remain in ESA.

Mr. David Atkinson: Good.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend referred to the European programme and an independent British programme. We must distinguish between research and development programmes and the development of operational satellites. The Government remain convinced of the value of Europe's pooling its resources in space research and development, but industry must be left free to select industrial consortia appropriate to meet the operational requirements.
My hon. Friend referred to possible dissension within the ESA. The ESA convention has been ratified by all the member States, including France, and it came into force


formally in October last year. However, that was a formality, because the ESA has developed vigorously since its formation in 1975.
With the arrival of opportunities to sell satellites in the market place, nations are having to consider carefully the role of the ESA. The United Kingdom is taking a leading part in these discussions, which we hope will lead to an even stronger ESA appropriate to the new situation.
Government involvement in the space programme has hitherto been largely devoted to research and development, funded almost entirely by my Department and the Department of Education and Science, through the Science Research Council. The figures given by my hon. Friend were not quite accurate. The amount involved in 1980 was nearly £60 million.
In the early 1970s we decided that the future of our space programme lay in collaboration with the ESA, which currently absorbs 90 per cent. of my Department's expenditure on this matter. The Government remain convinced of the value of Europe's pooling its resources in space research, thus enabling costs to be spread, particularly for the science programme, and a wider international participation and interest in development work considerably enhance the commercial prospects of the resulting operational systems.
Collectively, the European nations have the industrial know-how, a potentially large single market, the need for satellite-based services, a launch capability and a sizeable influence in international organisations. Even American firms must of necessity join multinational consortia to bid for contracts for satellite systems. I am pleased to say that United Kingdom companies have a prominent place among such firms.
Looking to the future, it is our intention, first, to maximise the commercial benefits to the United Kingdom, especially in communications systems and their application to the future. Secondly, we intend to support the reform of the ESA to make it more efficient and more inclined to foster the development of market-oriented technologies, whilst continuing to support scientific experiments. Thirdly, we intend to maintain a national space effort on commercial applications and cost-competitive technology, thus enabling United Kingdom companies to bid successfully for contracts. Fourthly, we intend to encourage greater investment from private sources in satellite business systems and satellite-based applications.
The Government have taken powers under the British Telecommunications Bill to license alternative telecommunications activities, and with burgeoning opportunities for the commercial exploitation of space applications the Government will look increasingly to the private sector to raise the necessary finance. Up to now our space industry has of necessity subsisted largely on Government funding. Little internationally competitive marketing effort has been needed. For the future, United Kingdom space firms will have to build up their marketing expertise to exploit the capability to which the Government have contributed. Only through continuing success in export markets can the United Kingdom space industry expect to expand. The Government will be willing to play their part in the effort to win export orders.
Some services can be offered over British Telecom's own lines. They are the services into which Professor

Beesley inquired and to which the Secretary of State referred yesterday. We hope that competition will develop soon.
Many interesting ideas have been floated for new services which compete with the network and do not involve British Telecom. Licensing must be carefully thought out. We are still examining what it might be possible to do.
Another example is the Ministry of Defence, which is about to place a contract with British industry for a communications satellite. In addition, last year the Home Secretary initiated a study into the options for and implications of direct broadcasting by satellite in the United Kingdom. The study has been completed and is expected to be published next month.
It will not be a blueprint for action, but it is intended to provide a basis on which decisions can be reached. Among other factors, it will deal with commercial prospects for our space and elecronics industries and the implications of direct broadcasting by satellite for our existing broadcasting system. The report will be helpful in exploring the opportunities in the context of the United Kingdom's broadcasting policy.
The Government have established machinery to ensure that Government action is proper:y co-ordinated and to give an overall view of priorities. We are involving industry in our discussions through the establishment of a new forum—the space consultative committee.
A number of important decisions have to be taken in the course of the year. I assure my hon. Friend that the House will be kept informed of progress. Our aim is to promote the British space industry by giving firmer and more coherent Government support and by encouraging firms to adopt a more positive attitude towards the commercial exploitation of their undoubted expertise.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make a few remarks to the House. I hope that I have convinced him that the Government are exploring and exploitating many of the factors that he mentioned.

Rastafarians

Mr. Thomas Cox: I asked for this debate because a certain Richard Campbell, who was in Ashford remand centre a year ago, was a Rastafarian—a movement with which few people are familiar. Had someone in the prison authorities been aware of the attitude of Rastafarians and the language that they speak, Richard Campbell might have had a greater understanding of the problems that he faced while in custody. Regrettably, that did not happen. However, in view of the events that have taken place in Brixton during the past week, I believe that there are even stronger reasons for having this debate today.
Many people will ask: what are Rastafarians? When I say that they are youngsters who wear their hair in plaits or ringlets, often wear hats in the national colours of Ethiopia, and speak a language that many of us find hard to understand, people frequently reply "Yes, I have seen those people around". That, I am afraid, is often the extent of the knowledge or understanding about Rastafarians. Few people understand that that is part of the belief, indeed the religion, of these youngsters, who overwhelmingly are black.
The need for understanding within our community has never been more important. The authorities that represent law and order in this country—the police and the prison services—are those that come into contact with the Rastafarian. We need to know the official policy towards Rastafarians. Obviously, the police come into contact with them every day in the places where they live and work. I hope that the Minister will tell us what advice the Home Office gives to local police commanders about the involvement of the police officer on the beat with these people and the attitude that he should take.
It may be said that it is not the role of the police to single out groups within the community. During the past few days there have been numerous complaints saying "The police do not understand us or co-operate with us". Whatever the findings of the Scarman inquiry, at present it is not Home Office policy to recognise these people, who have a strongly held belief in what is, to them, their religion. Unless something is done, the misunderstandings that have already cost us dear will continue.
It is not our role as parliamentarians to decide whether we like people or their beliefs. Our role should be to encourage those who make up our community to become part of it. I hope therefore that the Minister will clearly state the Department's views on police attitudes to Rastafarians. I have tried to say why recognition is so important. Although I do not know the attitude of the police, I know that the attitude taken by the prison authorities is negative. Moreover, in many ways the attitude taken by prison authorities is the more important. After all, outside prison one is free. Great bitterness is caused by the feeling that there is an added punishment—indeed, an insult to what to a Rastafarian is his belief. We should be foolish to deny that that happens.
Document 60/1976 is headed:
Circular instructions to all prison department establishments".
It says:
This instruction gives guidance for dealing with inmates who claim to be Rastafarians and who may also claim to be members of the Ethiopian orthodox church. It has been decided that Rastafarianism does not qualify as a religious denomination for the purpose of section 10(5) of the Prison Act 1952 which requires the Governor to record on reception the religious denomination to which a prisoner declares himself to belong. Accordingly, if an inmate on reception wishes to record Rastafarianism as his religion, he should be informed that this cannot be accepted for registration for the purposes of section 10(5) of the Prison Act 1952 and rule 10 of the Prison Rules 1964.
I have already indicated that this instruction was sent out in 1976. To my knowledge, there has been no updating. If that is true, I suggest to the Minister that it shows that the Home Office is unaware of the growth and attitudes that exist within youngsters who are Rastafarians.
One other comment in the instruction is:
In support of a request to be allowed to wear hair long, an inmate may claim he belongs to the Ethiopian orthodox church. It has been confirmed with the resident priest of that church that long hair is not a requirement and governors may therefore require hair to be cut.
I do not know whether that takes place. Governors are men of ability and common sense, and I am sure that in such instances they will use their judgment. But if a man's hair is clean and tidy, why should he not be allowed to grow it long if he wishes? If he is forced to have his hair cut, he will regard it as a further indication of the denial of his rights.
Can the Minister say what guidance on this movement has been given to the prison department by the Home Office race relations adviser? Can he also say when this information was last given to the Home Office? Is the Minister aware that in many aspects of day-to-day life attitudes change and the growth of this movement among young people clearly shows that to be so at present?
As I have already pointed out, the instruction to which I have referred is five years out of date. Therefore, can the Minister say whether we have yet reconsidered whether the prison authorities regard Rastafarianism as a religion to which someone sent to prison can claim to belong? Do we allow books on this movement to be kept in prison? Do we allow Rastafarians to become prison visitors? Do we allow Rastafarians special diets in prison if they request such diets?
I have tried to outline the comments which are often made to me by young Rastafarians in the part of London that I represent. They say "This is something that we really believe the authorities should look at." I have tried in no way to criticise either the police or the prison service. They have a job to do, often in difficult conditions. I wish to find out the attitude of the Home Office on this subject and what guidelines are given both to the police and to the prison service.
There should be more understanding. As I pointed out at the commencement of my speech, more understanding in the case of Richard Campbell could have been of great benefit not only to him but to the prison authorities. I suggest that it will help in trying to show young people who do not relate easily to authoriy that a real attempt is being made to understand them and what they believe are their religious beliefs. Such an approach would be good at any time, but especially so at present.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has long taken an interest in this subject, for raising it upon the Adjournment and giving us the opportunity to set out the approach of both the prison service and the police service to those who describe themselves as Rastafarians. It is a sensitive and difficult subject.
The circular instruction issued by the prison department in 1976 demonstrates that the Home Office and the prison department have taken a sensitive and concerned approach. Anyone who reads it can hardly fail to note the intention that is implicit in it of understanding this unusual body of people and trying to ensure that their treatment in prison, when unfortunately Rastafarians end up in prison, is humane and understanding of their beliefs and way of life.
The way in which we deal with Rastafarians is one aspect of our attitude to race relations generally. I make clear the Government's commitment to promoting a society in which all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, have equal rights, equal responsibilities and equal opportunities. Members of ethnic minority communities are as much our citizens as members of the indigenous majority. I know that the police and the prison authorities share a firmly held commitment to maintaining the best possible relations with the ethnic minorities.
A positive approach to maintaining good race relations has been adopted in the prison service. First, some care is taken by liaison with the leaders of the ethnic minority


religions to ensure that on matters of dress, diet, religious services and exemption from work on days of religious festivals their requirements are met.
Secondly, ministers of minority religions are appointed to prisons to visit prisoners of their denomination, to conduct religious services and to extend to them their pastoral care. I am glad to report that the leaders of minority religions are most helpful in this respect. The prison service relies on them greatly for advice on religious observance and the requirements of their religions generally. For example, there is an arrangement that we have been able to approve with the Islamic cultural centre for special food to be sent in to Muslim prisoners in the London prisons at the end of Ramadan.
Special care is taken to meet dietary requirements. Guidance is issued to prison establishments on such requirements. The guidance has been agreed with the minority religious leaders as being compatible with the practical limitations imposed by imprisonment. For example, it provides for Muslims to have a pork-free diet by offering either an alternative dish when pork is on the menu or a vegetarian diet. Prisoners may always ask for a vegetarian diet.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether religious books on Rastafarianism were allowed in prisons. They are. He asked whether Rastafarians were allowed to become prison visitors. Nothing prevents them becoming prison visitors.
One cannot deny that the presence of members of the ethnic minorities in our prisons occasionally poses problems. Staff must develop an understanding with all prisoners, not only as an aid to keeping control, but also as a means of exercising positive influence upon them.
In dealing with prisoners whose origins are in the West Indies or Asia, it is important for staff to have background knowledge about their culture, religion and other needs. That has added a new dimension to the professionalism required of and found in the prison service. Race relations have therefore been included in the training of staff at all levels of the service. Staff also participate in external training on the subject. The prison department, for example, co-operates with the police, probation and social services in the organisation of seminars for senior staff. The most recent was a seminar held last week on "Youth and authority in a multi-racial society" organised by the university of Manchester in conjunction with the Home Office.
In prison, Rastafarianism is mainly manifested in young blacks with West Indian origin. Most Rastafarians are to be found in our young offender establishments. In the mid-1970s the prison department was asked to consider whether Rastafarianism should be treated as a religion and undertook extensive consultation, including with the High Commission for Jamaica, before concluding that it could not be treated as a religion for the purposes of the Prison Act, that is to say, in relation to the statutory provision for the appointment of ministers and the recording of a prisoner's religion.
One of the fundamental difficulties is that there is no church or central organising authority to which one could turn for information about beliefs or dress. That is different from some of the other examples which I have given. One of the most curious things about the Rastafarians is that there is no central organisation or religious authority. Some Rastafarians belong to the Ethiopian orthodox

church and where that is so provision is made, as was outlined in the circular instruction to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In any prison members of that church are entitled to the facilities accorded to that religion.
Additional problems are that the movement has no recognisable leaders and there is no one authentic style for dress or hair. Long hair or "dreadlocks", as they were originally called when they were introduced in that sect of the Rastafarians who made their headquarters at the pinnacle in Jamaica in the 1930s, are not required as a mark of religious observance by the Ethiopian orthodox church. Therefore, great difficulties led to the decision being taken that Rastafarianism could not be recognised as a religion under the Prison Act.
Nevertheless, Rastafarians have been coming into prisons for several years, and staff, particularly in remand centres and borstals, have become experienced in dealing with them. Guidance to staff about the curious and interesting origins of the movement and some of their beliefs was issued to prisons in the circular instruction, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
Although prison rules require convicted prisoners to have their hair cut for neatness and hygiene, governors take a tolerant approach to long hair, including Rastafarian styles, as most visitors to our prisons will realise. It is not for the Home Office to give special guidance to governors about how long hair should be and what approach they should make to prisoners of this or that denomination or sect. We must leave those matters to the discretion of the governors. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to their good sense. That is the right and sensible way to deal with those matters. I assure him that there is no "short back and sides" policy which is consistently applied to all and sundry in the prisons.
I am glad to say that there have been few incidents with a racial dimension in our penal establishments, which says a great deal for the professionalism of prison staff, who do a difficult job on behalf of the community. While Rastafarian prisoners occasionally cause problems, they are in general no more troublesome or difficult than other prisoners.
Before parting from the question of prison, I should like to say a word about the case of Richard Campbell, which the hon. Gentleman raised on the Adjournment on 8 August last year. I should not like it to be felt that, had there been a more understanding attitude towards Rastafarians and their problems, that unfortunate young man's life might have been saved. Many difficulties confronted those at the remand centre on his admission, and they were fully dealt with in the speech made by my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
I turn now to the question of relations between the police and Rastafarians. The police have to deal with persons of all colours and from all walks of life, and they have to cope with the manifestations of a good many religions. They do that as impartially as they can, in accordance with the traditions of which we are proud. A police officer is not interested in whether a person adopts a particular religion or form of dress. He is interested in whether that person is behaving lawfully.
A police officer's job is to enforce the law impartially, without fear or favour, which does not mean that he can afford to dismiss differences between people. Approaching people as individuals does not imply that the same approach must be adopted despite evident


differences in background or style of life. As chief officers know, policing any section of the community, but particularly ethnic minority communities, calls for officers to be informed about and sensitive to the background of the people living in the area policed.
That is why training is so important. Police forces throughout the country have done much to make sure that their training is appropriate to the communities that they serve. All police officers now receive training in community relations matters, both as probationers and at later stages of their careers. Particular efforts are made by forces whose areas include substantial ethnic minority communities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at no other time has greater understanding of racial differences and the problems that come from multi-racial communities been more important than it is today.
In the Metropolitan area, for example, 10 per cent. of the initial 15-week course for newly joined police officers is devoted to community relations, and other relevant lectures are given throughout the course. The position is similar in respect of training given to probationers in provincial forces. In recent years, community relations have taken an increasingly prominent part in courses for more senior officers. For example, the Police Training Council has recently established two working parties to undertake major revisions in inspectors' training and command training at the police staff college at Bramshill. A review of the social studies content of the probationer training syllabus has also recently been completed. In all the reviews special attention has been given to the race relations aspect.
At the national level the Home Office has for many years sponsored, in conjunction with the department of extra-mural studies at Manchester university, a course in community relations for senior police officers at Holly Royde. That highly respected course, which a large number of officers at very senior levels have attended, puts over a great deal of information about ethnic minorities, including the Rastafarians, and has an important role to play in ensuring that young officers get the informed supervision that they need.
Quite apart from training, in recent years the police have made great efforts to move closer to the communities that they serve. Many forces have established specialist community relations departments and have appointed police community liaison officers, whose tasks specifically include developing formal and informal contacts with leaders and members of the ethnic communities. But, of course, they need help.
It is no good if teachers, for example, refuse to allow police officers to come into the schools to explain what the police are trying to do, because this is not something that the police can do on their own. Already there is an impressive variety of community policing schemes and many forces are now seeking to reintroduce "beat Bobbies". The presence of individual police officers who know and are known by the local community can, I am sure, make a great contribution to harmonious relations between the police and the public. I believe that we should do well to bear that in mind at this time.
It would be idle to pretend that, in spite of these patient efforts and the considerable input of resources, problems do not remain. But I do not believe that Rastafarians should be singled out as a special case. Nor are there grounds for supposing that they are subject to any special attention from the police. I know that in the past there have

been allegations in the media that the Rastafarian cult was linked with drug abuse and petty crime. I am quite sure that such allegations are for the most part unjust, or at any rate exaggerated, and that the great majority of Rastafarians are committed to a peaceful and religious way of life.
Difficulties can, however, arise when persons who, to the untrained eye or to those who lack the necessary knowledge, appear indistinguishable from genuine Rastafarians commit criminal acts. Clearly, there is a real danger of stereotyping. That is why measures of the kind that I have described are so important and why they have the full backing of chief officers of police. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are those who adopt a style of dress and perhaps a hair style similar to that of those who follow the Rastafarian religious beliefs and way of life but who behave in criminal and otherwise undesirable ways. I am confident, however, that the patient efforts to impart knowledge and to bring the police and the community closer together will succeed.
Finally, communication is a two-way process. However hard the police try to understand the problems of particular groups, all of their efforts will be in vain unless all members of the community, including those groups themselves, make an equal effort to understand the problems of the police and indeed the problems of the rest of the community. At the end of the day, the primary duty of the police is to enforce the law. If we do not all assist them in this, we shall pay a heavy price. The maintenance of good race relations, whether in the community generally, in our prisons, or in relations between the police and the public, is clearly of vital concern to us all. That scarcely needs to be said after the events of last weekend in Brixton.
Against that background, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office will closely study and bear in mind all that he has said in this short and valuable debate.

Cultural Property (International Centre Grant)

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising what is perhaps at first sight a slightly esoteric but nevertheless a rather important subject, namely, the withdrawal of grant from the International Centre for the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. The work of UNESCO is often criticised, I think sometimes justly, because of the vague general nature of its objectives, because of expense, and because it is perhaps of questionable value.
I suggest, however, that none of those criticisms can be levelled at what is generally known as ICCROM. The centre was founded in 1959 on the initiative of Dr. Plenderleith, a former head of the British Museum research laboratory. He became its first director and Britain has always played a very strong part in its work. Indeed, there have always been British subjects in the forefront of its councils and two of its three directors have been British. In addition, Britain as a country has benefited.
I shall not weary the House, but I should like to give a few examples. Up to 1980, the latest year for which full figures are available, 20 participants have received


training at the centre in Rome. The centre has been a channel for the Italian Government and EEC scholarships to British participants, equivalent to about $3,000 per person. ICCROM subsidised a lecturer at the London university institute of archaeology for four years. It supported a British conference on wall paintings with a subsidy of $5,000.
It has enabled British experts to attend international conferences with contributions to meet their expenses. It has advised British consultants on projects abroad. Such projects have been many and various, but I name only three—Michael Rice's work on the museums of Saudi Arabia, Shankland Cox on the Luxor West Bank and Mr. Faulkner on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. British suppliers are frequently recommended for contracts abroad. They have recently been recommended in China and Equador.
I merely quote those few examples to show that we as a nation have benefited both directly and indirectly from our participation in the work of this centre. It has brought great benefit to countries throughout the world, especially to the Third world, which is the concern of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. I am delighted that he is present and grateful that he will reply to the debate.
We must also bear in mind that it has not just been Britain that has been rescued economically by tourism. Many of the underdeveloped countries increasingly depend, and will continue to do so, on tourism. Anything that helps them to enhance and preserve the heritage of historic buildings and other objects that tourists go to see can only fall into that sensible category of the best sort of aid—enlightened self-interest.
All this is done at very little cost. If we were debating a large sum of public money, I would not seek to detain the House. If it meant my hon. Friend cutting hundreds of thousands of pounds from his budget, much as I might have regretted his action I could not have criticised it. But in all conscience we are talking of a very small sum indeed. This year, it amounts to about £39,000. Yet the decision has been taken that the grant will be withdrawn.
From the moment that that announcement was made at the end of last year, in a written reply, there has been increasing concern, which has built up to what could almost be called an outcry. I can do no better than to quote from a letter to The Times, which Dr. Bernard Feilden, the current director of ICCROM, sent on 23 February. It states:
The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property … was sudden … No warning was given of the Government's intentions, no reason being provided at the time to justify its actions on December 22. Since then I have met the Minister for Overseas Development who assured me that there were no complaints about the work of ICCROM, but explained that it was the Government's policy to cut back on multilateral aid. As Britons receive $170,000 back from participating in the activities of ICCROM in return for $65,000 subscribed it is hard to see why ICCROM's work is classified as aid. One might say aid to whom? Unfortunately the immediate sufferers from the withdrawal are British candidates for places at ICCROM, who probably lose grants of the order of $30,000.
Then comes the most important part of the letter, which states:
The work of ICCROM in conserving our heritage, be it in museums or in historic buildings and towns, is multidisciplinary, bringing together archaeololgists, architects, art historians,

engineers, museologists, curators/conservators and scientists. Distinguished members of each of these disciplines have written to support ICCROM and protest in astonishment, amazement and disgust at the Government's clumsy action. Unfortunately, because it is broadly based on humanistic, scientific and artistic skills, conservation has no one sponsor in governmental circles, so when financial cuts were made no one wanted to speak for ICCROM. Unfortunately for Britain, these cuts will have long-term repercussions far beyond those envisaged. ICCROM has been an agent for spreading British culture, skills and technology in a field where quality counts. British teachers have helped and British experts have been recommended for many interesting and difficult jobs. As Director, I have been proud to be a Briton and an ambassador for our country to the four corners of the world".
Let us remember that Dr. Feilden is a very distinguished man. He helped to save York Minster, he helped to save the spire of Norwich Cathedral, and he was the architect to St. Pauls before he went to Rome. He has given long and distinguished service to conservation and has achieved much of great practical importance.
As the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, on which I sit, was acutely concerned about this matter, we decided, during our recent visit to Rome—a visit that was not planned specifically in order to go to ICCROM—to see for ourselves the centre and what it does. We were deply impressed. We saw a group of dedicated, knowledgeable experts, working with enormous enthusiasm—and, indeed, love—and instructing and inspiring students from all over the globe.
My hon. Friend may say that only 30 per cent. come from the so-called underdeveloped world, but 30 per cent. is a fairly large percentage. When we consider the riches with which that world is entrusted, it becomes a very significant percentage. I know that I can speak for all my colleagues on the Committee who took part in that visit—six of the nine members were able to go—when I say that we were deeply impressed, not to say moved, by what we heard from the students.
It was particularly notable that the British contribution was of paramount importance. English is one of the only two official languages of the centre, the other being French, and as we went round and saw young Finns, Bulgarians, Nigerians, Ugandans and people from the Arab world studying in our language the techniques of preserving their heritage, we realised that here was something of very great importance.
We felt so strongly about this that when we returned we decided to produce a brief report and present it to the House. It was published last week. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to refer to it and answer it in some detail when he replies. But perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the conclusions of our report. We said:
The Committee believe that the amount of the British contribution"—
I repeat; it is £39,000—
is so small that it could and should have been possible for our contribution to be maintained. We consider that the work accomplished by ICCROM is of fundamental importance in the field of conservation, and should not be jeopardised. We are concerned that the withdrawal of this grant will cause damage out of all proportion to the sums saved, and that the decision to withdraw it neglects the cost effectiveness of ICCROM. We concede that the cost of funding ICCROM might well be better borne on another budget"——
I stress that point——
but, because of the smallness of the sum involved, think it regrettable that a precipitate decision was taken without adequate prior consultation and without consideration of transferring the funding to another budget.
I emphasise that there really was not consultation outside governmental circles. Indeed, the cultural


commission that advises my hon. Friend on UNESCO matters and on which I have the honour to serve as a result of his kind invitation was not consulted. At its last meeting on 27 March it felt, unanimously, so concerned about the matter that it requested an urgent meeting with my hon. Friend.
The Select Committee went on to say that it was
firmly of the opinion that the preservation of heritage objects and cultural property is of prime importance, and a fundamental duty of national governments and international organisations. The work of ICCROM is of particular significance in this regard, and Britain should continue to play its full part both in the funding and development of this valuable international centre.
The Committee therefore recommend that our notice of withdrawal from the centre should itself be withdrawn forthwith, and that immediate consultations be held between the Foreign Office, including the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Education and Science, to decide how best to continue our membership.
I ask only that my hon. Friend the Minister should remove that sword of Damocles. It hangs above the head of the centre and causes concern that is out of all proportion to the sum involved. The very prestige of our nation in certain influential circles is at stake. We are talking about those who are considerable formers of opinion in their own nations. It is extremely regrettable that we should precipitately and at a stroke withdraw from ICCROM.
I have it on the best authority, and have been given permission to say, that only yesterday the director of the British Museum wrote on behalf of his trustees to my hon. Friend pointing out the significance of ICCROM's work and urging that the decision be reconsidered. If my hon. Friend thinks that the budget is wrong and that his Department should be not be permanently. responsible, I understand that. However, I urge him to accept the Select Committee's recommendation and to take part in the discussions. He should remove the threat and say that it is the Government's intention to find that small sum of money.
I remember attending a conference on the arts at which the Prime Minister spoke before the Conservative Party had come into office. If my memory serves me right, it took place in May 1978. All sorts of people who took an interest in the visual or performing arts gathered together. We heard splendid speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and others. The most stirring speech of the day was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. With precision and passion she pointed out that there were certain areas in which a little money did a great deal of good and in which its withdrawal did harm out of all proportion to the sum involved. She spoke about candle-end economies that could do great damage. There was not a person in the hall who did not cheer to the echo when she sat down.
We are talking not about candle-end economies but about matchstick-economies. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) is in the Chamber. He is a distinguished member of the Select Committee and was with us on the visit to Rome. No doubt he will endorse all that I have said. This does not represent an attack on the Minister as a politician. Nor is it a party argument. Britain is making a valuable and valid contribution. The cost is very low. It is in our interest to continue participating in ICCROM. We shall derive enormous benefit from it and We shall help to preserve that cultural heritage which it is the common duty of us all to seek to enhance.

Mr. John McWilliam: rose——

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) is sitting opposite me. It is a curious feeling to stand at this Dispatch Box and to see completely empty Benches before me. I apologise to him if I have prevented him from making a speech. I am sure that it would have been a good one in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack).
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject and congratulate him on having made such an excellent speech. I am very much aware of the depth of feeling which the decision to withdraw from ICCROM has aroused. Over the past few months—since I told Parliament of the decision—I and my officials have replied to more than 50 letters on the subject. On each occasion we have been at pains to explain the reasons behind our decision in as much detail as possible.
My hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee report. I do not intend to answer that now. We are studying it and we shall answer in due course. He said that the report was a precipitate action. I assure him that that was not so and I shall deal with that shortly.
The debate gives me an opportunity to reiterate the reasons for withdrawing from ICCROM to hon. Members and through them, with any luck, to as wide an audience as possible. I am anxious to ensure that it is clearly understood both here and overseas that this decision should not be taken as implying any criticism of the performance of ICCROM in its activities.
ICCROM, formerly known as the Rome centre and now bearing as its full name the International Centre for the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, was established by UNESCO in 1959. Membership is open to all member States of UNESCO and, to date, membership stands at 67, which is slightly less than half the possible membership if all eligible States joined.
ICCROM's functions are broadly fourfold. I apologise for saying this to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Blaydon, because they know the facts, but I hope that the debate will be read in a wider context than that of the six hon. Members present in the Chamber. The functions are, first, to collect, study and circulate documentation concerned with the scientific and technical problems of the preservation and restoration of cultural property: secondly, to co-ordinate, stimulate or institute research in the field, for example, as my hon. Friend said, through international meetings, publications and exchange of specialists or by engaging bodies or experts for this type of work: thirdly, to give advice and general recommendations on matters connected with the preservation and restoration of cultural property and, lastly, to assist in training research workers and technicians and raising the standard of restoration work.
The centre is still sited in Rome and, as might be expected, a lion's share of ICCROM's activities—about a third—is of direct benefit to Italy. About the same proportion is directed towards other developed countries—for the most part those in Eastern and Western Europe. The remaining third—the part that concerns me most—is of benefit to the developing countries, for which I have responsibility.
I have already mentioned that ICCROM originated from UNESCO and the connection between the two organisations remains close. The greater part of UNESCO's programme is directed at developing countries. For that reason, overall responsibility for Britain's relations with UNESCO rests with me and my Department. It follows from that that prime responsibility for Britain's relationship with ICCROM has, in the past, rested with me also. The connection with UNESCO is underlined in the method of calculation of the annual subscription to ICCROM, which amounts to 1 per cent. of each member State's assessed contribution to UNESCO, which is expressed in United States dollars.
In 1982, assuming that the exchange rate remains at its current level, the saving will be, as my hon. Friend said, about £39,000. I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend when he says that it is not a large sum. In terms of many items of Government expenditure, including many which are the responsibility of my Department, it is very small. However, it is not immaterial to the point that a great many activities are financed through the aid Vote which involve similar sums of money and which, taken together, amount to a considerable financial obligation.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Prime Minister's speech in which she referred to candle ends. This is a candle end in financial terms, but I was faced with a large number of candle ends which, when melted down, made a whole candle. That was a substantial saving to our budget.
As an example of the types of activity more usually associated with the Overseas Development Administration, I remind hon. Members that the sum saved by our withdrawal from ICCROM would amply cover the cost of sending two child health workers to Africa. That is the sort of problem with which I am faced—that of balancing those two possible expenditures. Equally, it would represent the cost of bringing to Britain several people for courses of training in practical matters necessary further to stimulate development in their own countries.

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister accept that it was not the intention of the Select Committee—all of the Select Committee; it was a unanimous report—to suggest that the activities which he has just described should be sacrified for ICCROM? What the Select Committee suggested was that, perhaps, it was on the wrong Vote, and that, perhaps, by transferring it, the benefits which accrue to this country by membership of it could continue to be enjoyed.

Mr. Marten: I recognise that point. I hope that we shall be able to deal with that when we reply to the Select Committee's report. This is a question whether it is right for it to be on my Vote. As I have explained, UNESCO happens to be with me, and it therefore follows that this is with me.
I shall not develop further the line I was taking before that intervention; nor shall I try to get us involved in what might be a fruitless argument about whether remaining in ICCROM is a better use of funds than sending two child health workers to Africa. This could be as unproductive as the argument that we should not consider small items of expenditure as potential economies.
Once the decision had been made to cease making the annual payment from ODA votes, I discussed with colleagues in the Government whether there was some

other Vote from which Government could find the money. There was none, and we reluctantly decided that we must give to the director general of UNESCO by the end of 1980 one year's notice of withdrawal from ICCROM, as required by the statutes of the organisation. This was a step I took with considerable regret, but it was unavoidable, given the circumstances.
This was announced to the House in the form of an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on 18 December. At that stage I notified Professor Lasko, British member of ICCROM's governing council, and Mr. Feilden, director of ICCROM, who is British. I am aware that some hold the view that Professor Lasko should have been brought into the consultations which led up to our decision to withdraw. I hope that I have already made it clear that the decision was made entirely on financial grounds and that, therefore, there would have been little purpose in seeking Professor Lasko's views since these could only have been on the intrinsic merits of ICCROM—matters which were not at any time called into question. It would also have been quite improper in my view for advance warning of our withdrawal to be given to anyone before I had informed Parliament of my decision.
Subsequently, I agreed to see Professor Lasko and Mr. Feilden, who wanted to put their case to me in person. I took the opportunity of inviting representatives of those Departments I had earlier consulted—about whether they would accept the cost—to be present at the meeting. This meeting was useful and informative but neither I nor the other Departments' representatives found anything in what Professor Lasko and Mr. Feilden told us to warrant a reversal of the decision to withdraw, which, I repeat, was taken only after long and careful consideration.
It is, I hope, clear that the decision to withdraw was reached after a thorough examination, first, of the case for retaining it on ODA' s Votes and, secondly, through consultation with other interested Departments on the possibilities of finding other departmental sources for Britain's subscription. At no stage has it been suggested that our action reflects any dissatisfaction with ICCROM. On the contrary, we have always recognised it as a body with a thoroughly high standard of professional competence and with a deservedly high international reputation, and I should like to pay a particular tribute to the work of Mr. Bernard Feilden, the director of ICCROM. At no stage did those involved imagine that news of our withdrawal would be welcomed—and our considerations were all the more careful as a result.
When I met Mr. Feilden he said that he intended to look into the possibility of the British subscription being raised from private sources. My officials are currently looking into whether, if the money can be found in that way, it would be possible for our official membership to continue. There may well be other such proposals being put together by the many people and organisations I know to be interested in our continued membership of ICCROM. I can assure the House that I am prepared to consider sympathetically any such proposals provided they do not depend upon any continuing financial commitment from the aid programme.

Walsall (Industry)

Mr. Bruce George: As an hon. Member who is desperately anxious about the future of his town, I have used every opportunity to point out to Ministers the serious problems of decline in industry in Walsall and the consequent spiralling unemployment. My previous opportunity was a debate on unemployment in the West Midlands on 30 March.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I took a delegation from the local authority to meet the Minister and I am grateful to him for listening attentively to what we said. Last week I had the honour to be one of the leaders of a march, by the Walsall Trades Council, through the town against rising unemployment.
I am fortunate to have obtained this debate to raise once again the increasing problems that Walsall is facing. The previous Adjournment debate that I secured was the final debate in Parliament before the election. The situation has deteriorated even further since then. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in the Chamber. His attendance at that previous debate did not go unnoticed in my constituency.
Two years ago the position in Walsall was not so desperate. For example, unemployment in Darlaston in my constituency was much lower, and there was a lot of money available under derelict land clearance schemes and much more aid for industry. A new shopping centre was being built, and it is ironic that two years ago there were a few shops and a lot of industry, whereas today we have a magnificent shopping centre but hardly any factories where people can earn money to spend in those shops.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), who was then a Minister, came to the town about two years ago, the inflation rate was under 10 per cent. and unemployment was just over 6 per cent. The situation is now much more serious, with unemployment at Walsall at nearly 14 per cent. That is the official figure, but if one adds the numbers on job creation schemes and includes the unemployed of Darlaston, which is not in the Walsall travel-to-work area, and the hundreds or thousands of people who have not registered and those on short time, one realises that the situation is even more desperate than that appalling figure of 14 per cent. unemployed suggests.
What will be the trend in employment one, two or five years from now? The manpower service group at Warwick university has projected that by the mid-1980s one in five males in the West Midlands will be unemployed. One can extrapolate an even more disastrous figure, because the inner urban areas are already bearing the brunt of unemployment and the figure of one in five males unemployed could turn out to be exceptionally optimistic.
The situation is serious and getting worse. Last week, there was an outdoor meeting near the Walsall cenotaph, and behind us was a roll call of the town's glorious dead. One could build another cenotaph nearby showing a list of companies now deceased. They include T.I. Sunhouse, Aluminium Bronze and Eton Axles in Darlaston. I flew to Cleveland in a vain attempt to get that latter decision reversed. Some firms that no longer exist might have been inefficient and deserved to go to the wall, although I do

not believe that. If the Government had given more encouragement and adopted different policies, perhaps such companies would still exist.
Many companies have shed labour. That is a euphemism for creating unemployment. I have a list giving an enormous number of such companies. The situation is desparate for the town which I am proud to represent. Not only members of the Labour Party are angry. I have received letters from people who were Conservative voters and from church groups. A man of the cloth joined us in last week's march.
A communication from the local chamber of commerce gives the results of the latest quarterly economic survey. Companies were asked whether they were working at full capacity. Thirteen per cent. said they were. Only 21 per cent. were working at between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. capacity and 41 per cent. were working at between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. capacity. A quarter of the companies were working at under 60 per cent. capacity. The answers to the questions make a catalogue of depressing reading.
Nearly half of the companies interviewed had cut their work forces in the last few months. Investment plans are also depressing. A total of 62 per cent. of companies have unchanged investment plans and 22 per cent. have revised their investment plans downwards since the survey three months previously. Turnover and confidence are plummeting. Only 17 per cent. of firms were confident that their profitability would improve. Of the firms questioned, 56 per cent. said that they expected profitability to worsen.
That is a catalogue of disaster. I am sure that the Minister receives similar depressing reports from all over the country. Interest rates should be lowered, according to 85 per cent. of the companies in the survey. I do not entirely agree, but 57 per cent. of the companies called for a reduction in local authority rating. Another 35 per cent. sought some restriction on competition from abroad. The impact of unemployment is obvious.
We are creating a bitter generation among our young people. The short-term and long-term consequences of so many disaffected young people will be serious. Much of the blame must be borne by the Government. One hon. Member suggested that the solution was to draft our young people into some form of military service. That solution is bananas. Young children want real jobs. They do not want to be press ganged into military service. That is not an argument against a defence posture. If we want a home guard, we can extend the Territorial Army. To seek forcibly to put unemployed youths into the military in the way suggested is wrong.
The consequences of increasing unemployment on harmonious race relations are serious. Inner city areas with potential race relations problems are at risk. I do not wish to be alarmist, but what happened in Bristol and South London could happen elsewhere, even in areas with good race relations records.
What can be done? There are a number of different answers. The best solution is to have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer and even a new Government. If there is to be no change in the immediate future, what can the present Government do? They could heed the policy of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in its letter to the Chancellor asking for a reduction in energy costs. The association states further:


All our chambers' surveys show a continual deterioration in industrial and commercial profitability. That cannot go on.
Local authorities can do a great deal if they are given the right support. It is sad that, because of the ending of capital allocations to Walsall, the council cannot continue its programme of small industrial units. During the past two years, 26 were built. The scheme has been highly successful and there was a great demand for it from local businesses. But now, when the last project is finished, that construction programme will be no more than history.
I hope that the Government will do more to encourage new and up-to-date technologies. Whether the blame lies with the Government or locally, I do not know. I helped to organise a conference two years ago at a West Midlands college to encourage the use of microprocessors, but apparently only five companies in the town were given assistance towards the cost of feasibility studies. If the town is to survive, it must adapt new techniques, and the Government can do much more to encourage that process.
I also hope that more encouragement will be given by the local authority. Recently it has been criticised and maligned a great deal. Through its small firms advice unit, much is being done to promote the town more successfully than has happened in the past. Indeed, the local authority commissioned a report by Aston university on the local economy, and many of its recommendations are now being implemented.
I should welcome some restriction on imports to help the leather industry in Walsall, and also the nuts and bolts industry in Darlaston, which is in desperate straits. I welcome the help that is being given to the motor vehicle industry, because many jobs in Walsall depend upon the healthy survival of that industry. I believe that the Government should stop the export of capital, which is draining the lifeblood from our county and town. Perhaps foreign industry should be encouraged to invest, but I do not believe that the policy of seeking crumbs from Japanese tables should be a main plank of any Government's policy.
I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North time to speak, because he shares the problems of my area. I therefore conclude by saying that we are living in a mixed economy. That means that we have a healthy private sector as well as a healthy public sector. There is no reason why one should be incompatible with the other. It is wrong to blame this Government for all the country's evils and problems, although they have been given an added twist by the foolish policies that have been pursued over the past two years.
I hope that it is not too late for the Government to see the error of some of their ways. I hope that it is not too late to devise an industrial strategy that would not only genuinely create new firms and sustain the important public sector, but reduce unemployment and create a healthy environment in Walsall, thus enabling its inhabitants to make full use of their talents and create something that has been denied to Walsall for some time, namely, a healthy economy. I look even to this Government to provide the necessary support.

Mr. David Winnick: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the plight of local industry in our borough. On 16 March I took a deputation to meet the

Under-Secretary of State. That deputation included my hon. Friend as well as leading members of the local authority. We spoke to the Minister about the industrial decline and unemployment in the borough, and stressed the need for the Government action to reverse the decline in Walsall. Perhaps the Minister thought before that we were exaggerating, but after we gave him the figures and showed him how unemployment had grown and how many firms had closed I think that even he accepted that we had and have a strong case.
During the past 20 months, Walsall, like the Black Country as a whole, has been devastated, largely as a result of the economic policies of this Government. We have had redundancies on a large scale, we have had closures, and there has been extensive short-time working. Unemployment in the West Midlands is rising faster than in any other part of Britain, including Northern Ireland. But within the West Midlands unemployment is growing faster in the borough of Walsall than in any other part of the region.
The figures given to me this week in a reply on short-time working illustrate the points that we are making in this debate. For example, in May 1979 there were 12 people on a short-time scheme in Walsall. In February this year the number was 9,892.
Of course, we are and must be concerned about school leavers unable to get jobs who spend months, if not years, in the dole queues, with the resulting bitterness that arises. But at the same time we must be concerned about men over 45 years of age who become redundant as in Walsall and the Black Country, because they may never find other work during their normal working lives. In April 1979 there were 2,901 men over 45 years of age registered as unemployed. In January this year the figure was 5,700.
With such heavy unemployment—over 13 per cent.—we have seen the return of individual hardship and poverty. When I was elected the Member of Parliament for Walsall, North, most constituents who wrote to me and came to my surgeries were worried about housing. Now at least 40 per cent. of constituents who come to my surgeries are worried about incomes, redundancies, and having to live on reduced incomes because they cannot find work. In many instances they are striving to bring up small children and need more assistance from the DHSS. Therefore, we have seen the return of hardship and deprivation of the kind that we hoped not to see again.
The Minister received a deputation that I headed last month. Apart from listening to our problems again today, I hope that he will come to the borough to see what is happening. No doubt he has already been to various parts of the West Midlands. However, I invite him to come and see what is and has been happening in Walsall in the last 18 to 20 months. It would be a useful lesson not only for him but for his boss, the Secretary of State for Industry.
My council has been criticised for supporting the march from Liverpool to London that is due to take place next month by donating £5,000 towards it. I congratulate, not criticise, my council. I believe that it is right to give whatever support can be given to those who, in a lawful manner, wish to protest against mass unemployment.
As my hon. Friend said, there was a demonstration in Walsall last week. On 15 May the marchers will be coming into Walsall on their way to London. We shall give full support and hospitality to those who, like their predecessors of more than 40 years ago, will bring to the country's notice the problems of joblessness.
We make the plea: stop Walsall and the Black Country from becoming outright depressed areas. We have seen the growth of umemployment on a scale that was not thought possible. This has happened in the past 18 to 20 months. Walsall does not want to become a depressed area. The people want to work. They want the opportunities that they had in the post-war years to live with dignity and self-respect. We ask the Government to reverse the industrial decline, to reverse the disastrous policies that have caused such hardship to Walsall and to the country as a whole, and to allow our people to lead proper working and meaningful lives.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for this opportunity to discuss the industrial situation in Walsall. The Government are aware of the considerable difficulties facing all parts of the West Midlands. They were highlighted in the debate in the House on 30 March. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend that debate because I was on an intensive visit to the Midlands—a visit that enabled me to see a great deal of what was going on and to meet many people in industry.
I do not wish to repeat all the points that were made in that debate, although I have read it, but I accept that within this regional problem Walsall stands out as being particularly hard hit. I understand that that is because of Walsall's above-average dependence on those parts of the manufacturing sector that have faced the worst of the recession. That is especially so because many of them are dependent on the car industry.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, South said, I had the opportunity of discussing the problems that Walsall faces with him and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) when they led a deputation from the area to see me on 16 March. I recognise the problems. I understand them and I have every sympathy for those who are involved,. The hon. Member of Walsall, North put his case about individuals in emotional terms. That was reasonable and I appreciate his feelings. However, there are many who have contributed to the problems that have arisen in the Walsall area apart from Governments. I do not think that the remedies lie only with the Government.
The Government differ from the two hon. Gentlemen not in their sympathy and understanding but in their opinion as to the causes of the problems and the solutions as we see them. The hon. Member for Walsall, South said very fairly that the problems were not of immediate creation. He said in a previous debate:
The crisis has not been unexpected but has been coming for some 20 years."—[Official Report, 30 March 1981; Vol 2, c. 94.]
I come fairly fresh to the problems of the West Midlands and I believe that is right.
In many ways the dependence of the West Midlands and of large parts of the West Midlands economy, especially that of Walsall, on the car industry, which over the 1970s was declining in comparison with what our competitors overseas were doing with their industries, has brought about many of the present problems not only for the components industry in Walsall but for the other heavy industries that provide many of the raw materials. A large part of the dilemma that we face in the West Midlands, as

in Britain generally, is that we have to recreate a competitive car industry to enable many other companies, which may not be inefficient or overmanned, to recover.
If we examine the statistics over the past few years, it emerges that the West Midlands, including Walsall, has been in relative decline. The process began long before the Government took office. I shall spend no more than a minute on the root of the problems before I turn to Walsall's particular problems, which lie in the toss of competitiveness of the region's manufacturing base. That mirrors the wider industrial problems that we face as a nation. Our industrial decline has been of long standing.
There were many who often warned that we were heading for decline and that the price would have to be paid at some time, as, increasingly, other nations went ahead of us and we fudged or put off the necessary decisions. There are many views on that score. I believe that the origin of the decline can be found partly through the many years for which we have endured high rates of inflation that have been in excess of those of our competitors, often with wage rates in excess of increases in production—we saw that classically in 1976–79—partly through Government overspending and borrowing, partly because of trade union working practices and overmanning, partly through the weaknesses of management and the failure to keep abreast in the development of products and the ability to meet customer requirements, partly because of excessive Government controls and interference, and partly through the burden of taxation and other discouragements imposed on enterprise and effort.
I put those causes on the record because they have been of long standing. It is our attempt to deal with them now that is leading to difficult problems in many areas that are facing industrial restructuring. This historical deterioration has now been brought into the open. It has been exacerbated by the world recession. Competition for orders has become much more intense. These factors lie at the root of the problems facing Walsall and the West Midlands.
The car industry lies at the heart of these problems. It is a specific example of the things that have gone wrong. I pay tribute to Sir Michael Edwardes and his team Over the past four years they have made massive efforts, perhaps belatedly, to pull things round. I pay tribute to the response that they are getting from the work force. It is interesting that the one car that British Leyland is selling well in the total car market is the Metro. That emphasises that new investment in new products, and perhaps most important of all the productivity from the new investment, are the keys to the turnround of the West Midlands economy.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Walsall, South in his emphasis on the mixed economy. However, there are some who have advanced an argument—I suspect that the hon. Member for Walsall, North is in this category—that is based on a recipe of increased public expenditure and more Government intervention.

Mr. George: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacGregor: Although to some, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North, that may seem a superficially attractive alternative for the short term, in that it might abate one of the main symptoms of our problem, which is unemployment—although we are spending large sums on that aspect—it does nothing to


alleviate the underlying causes of our malaise. In the longer term such palliatives would lead to British industry becoming more uncompetitive and to unemployment rising higher.
On that basis I shall examine one or two of the general national remedies put forward by the hon. Gentleman before I turn to the local scene. I, too, have seen the chamber of commerce survey in the West Midlands. I discussed it with the chamber of commerce, the CBI and others when I was in the West Midlands. It was interesting to see that interest rates and inflation were still at the top of the list. If we are to regenerate business confidence, inflation must be brought down to levels at least on the average—although I would prefer them to be below that—of our international competitors. We need that to remain competitive. Our high rate of inflation is the main cause of the increasing uncompetitiveness of so much of our industry. As inflation comes down and as Government spending is brought under control, interest rates will follow.
It is striking that so many of the remedies urged upon us by others, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North, in terms of greater public expenditure, would add to the problems of Government spending and of Government borrowing, thus putting back up both interest rates and inflation. I do not believe that that is what the vast majority of British industry wants, because it recognises that, if we can succeed in our strategy to bring down inflation and interest rates, that is the best possible prescription for its future success.
The problem of rates features highly in the West Midlands now and among industries in Walsall. The subject was raised perhaps more than any other during my two-day visit last week. The hon. Member may not like the fact that the high level of rates is so high up the league table of complaints from industry, but it is incumbent on all local authorities to play their part in trying to lighten the burdens on industry and commerce by looking rigorously at all their spending programmes, as most of industry and commerce has had to do in the past two years. Therefore, I fully understand the anxiety and anger of many businesses, especially small firms, when they find that they are paying nil or low wage rates this year and that one of the main burdens in their increasing costs is in the rising rates. Therefore, I hope that, as the Government have been constantly urging, local authorities will control their expenditure more than they have—in Walsall there has been an increase of nearly 24 per cent. in the non-domestic rate—not least in order to preserve jobs.
There have been many debates on energy costs in the past few weeks, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am fairly brief. I fully understand the anxiety of industry about the level of energy costs. Monopoly nationalised industry prices are difficult for a Government to deal with in the short term. Those are another major feature. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the energy task force reported in March that the majority of industrial customers paid no more than the average European prices for their energy. We recognise, however, that some companies are at a disadvantage. Those are the larger, energy-intensive industrial users. It is for that reason that measures were taken in the Budget to help those industries.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the leather goods industry, which I know features substantially in Walsall. I am aware of the problems of import competition currently facing the industry. As we have debated the matter on so many occasions, the hon. Gentleman will know why I could not support a view that import controls, or even selective import controls, are a desirable feature of our battery of economic weapons.
In the end, the solution lies in the ability of the industry to produce goods that the people want at a price that they are prepared to pay. I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this point. If the industry has evidence of dumping by foreign competitors, it should contact the Department of Trade, which will advise on the procedures for pursuing any complaint with the European Commission. Where there is evidence of dumping or unfair competition, we should see what can be done.
A measure of industrial support is available to encourage new investment and the development and application of new products and processes. We should recollect, however, that grants and subsidies paid to one firm or sector have to come from taxation raised from other sectors of the economy. That is why there must be a limit, particularly as industry places such importance on bringing down Government spending and inflation and interest rates. There must be a limit to the Government expansion of industrial support.
We do not expect industry in the West Midlands to make the transition without help. In Walsall help is needed to diversify the industrial base, particularly through encouraging companies in the growth sectors. The Government can help to stimulate the process.
Let me outline the help available to companies. On industrial assistance, aid is available under section 8 of the Industry Act to help with investment that is either internationally mobile or that will lead to substantial improvements in performance or the introduction of new products. Between the time that we came to power and December 1980, 50 projects in the Walsall travel-to-work area were offered over £1 million under section 8 schemes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the latest technologies. We are maintaining the schemes of assistance—the microprocessor applications project, the microelectronic industry support programme and the product and process development scheme, all designed to encourage the development and application of microprocessors and other advanced technology. A number of firms in Walsall have benefited from the aid, but I am conscious that relatively few have come forward for support. We discussed the matter when the deputation came to see us, so the hon. Gentleman knows that I am encouraging the Walsall borough council to discuss with the Department of Industry's regional office the scope for increasing local awareness of the aid available through presentations or seminars.
I am also aware of the importance of the small firm sector to Walsall, and there is encouraging news on that front, as, indeed, there is in the West Midlands as a whole, which I saw when I was there last week. The development of small businesses is vital to our industrial base. Small firms often provide the employment prospects that we badly need. Large firms that in the past have been badly overmanned have been shedding—to use a euphemistic term—their labour, and they will achieve increased


productivity without taking on many more people. That is why we are making a continuing effort to help the small business man and have introduced 60 practical measures.
My Department's small firms service in Birmingham is experiencing a large increase in inquiries from people who wish to start or to expand small firms, which is also encouraging. It will continue to work closely with the borough council's small business unit.
I refer again to British Leyland, but in a different context. Although it was not mentioned in the debate, some people in the West Midlands have been urging that certain parts that do not have assisted area status should be given it, or should have similar assistance. We should reflect that many companies in Walsall are dependent on the motor industry, so the area is receiving more of the taxpayers' money through Government decisions on BL—which will percolate through to the component industries and small companies—than many regionally assisted areas are getting through their assisted area status. The total of nearly £1,000 million amounts to a great deal more than the amount given to areas of high unemployment that have assisted area status. That fact is not always brought home.
Also, as a derelict land clearance area, Walsall is eligible for 100 per cent. grants from the Department of the Environment for reclamation. In addition, if we manage to attract Nissan to the country, whichever area it goes to, the components industries in the West Midlands will benefit greatly.
I conclude by referring to the substantial Manpower Services Commission training measures and other employment schemes that can help people in the Walsall area. Unfortunately, I do not have time to give the substantial figures that I have, but they show the support that we are trying to give and I shall send them to the hon. Gentleman.
In conclusion, the industrial restructuring after years of decline and increasing competition from overseas is painful, but it is necessary to undertake it for the country as a whole and if Walsall itself is to have a successful future based on a sound economy. That is what the Government measures are designed to achieve. That is the purpose of the Government's strategy. That is the only long-term way of establishing a sound future for Walsall as for the whole of the West Midlands.

Prisoner Transfer Treaties

3 pm

Mr. John Wheeler: I am particularly glad to raise the issue of prisoner transfer treaties. Since the announcement of the publication of the interdepartmental working party's report, there has been much interest in the prospect of opening negotiations about transfer agreements. In this country, if someone breaks the law, we take away his or her liberty. That is considered punishment enough. But for a United Kingdom citizen abroad the penalty is often far more severe. There are at present more than 600 British people languishing in foreign gaols.
First, the prisoner feels acute vulnerability and helplessness based on a total lack of understanding of what is happening to him. He is jostled through police stations and courts, all the proceedings being unfamiliar and in a foreign language. It is like being a pawn in a game over

which he has no control. One British citizen had to rely for his representation in court on a 13-year-old schoolboy whose only qualification to act as a translator was that he had worked in a restaurant which occasionally served tourists.
Secondly, the prisoner often suffers from complete isolation and loneliness. Long distances and bureaucaratic difficulties make visits by friends and relatives extremely rare. So he is deprived of that light at the end of the tunnel which helps to break up the sentences of other prisoners. He may go for years without seeing or speaking to anyone from his own background or in his own language.
The cultural shock of being imprisoned in a foreign country may also be traumatic. Prisoners returning from Muslim countries have described the antagonism felt towards them because they were the only ones who did not pray towards Mecca or because they ate and washed in a different, and therefore wrong, way.
For prisoners in countries with lower standards of living medical care is often negligible, if indeed it exists at all, be it for relatively minor problems such as toothache or scabies, or for potentially grave conditions such as asthma, diabetes or epilepsy.
There are those who say that if someone is stupid enough to break the law in a foreign country he has to take what is coming to him. To me, that is an ignorant and callous attitude, which, as a caring and civilised country, we cannot possibly acccept.
There are also hard administrative reasons why I support the setting up of prisoner transfer treaties. Looking after foreign prisoners in this country costs more than looking after ordinary United Kingdom prisoners. Special dietary arrangements and communications requirements all cost money. Anything that could be done to reduce that cost would help to relieve the appalling pressure already being placed on our prison service.
It should also be said that imprisoning people from foreign countries prevents the United Kingdom prison service from fulfilling one of its prime functions namely, providing for after-care arrangements. It is clearly nonsense to suggest that depriving a prisoner of communication in his own language, the opportunity to practise a working skill and any chance to see his family and friends can have anything but disastrous consequences for his chances of settlement in society after his release.
As The Times reported in February this year, a 29-yearold Briton imprisoned in Cuba could see no way out. He was found hanged in his cell. It is therefore of the utmost importance for the Government to seek to establish prisoner transfer treaties under which prisoners convicted abroad might be allowed to serve their sentences in their own country. That would also apply to foreigners convicted in Britain.
I welcome in particular the report of the interdepartmental working party, which has provided a comprehensive analysis of how such treaties could be implemented. I appreciate that legal difficulties and technicalities of a considerable nature must be overcome, but they can hardly be considered insurmountable. The evidence speaks for itself.
Transfer treaties already exist between the five Scandinavian countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. Canada, Mexico and the United States have concluded treaties with each other, and the United States also has independent treaties with Turkey and Bolivia. Yet Britain has no such treaties.
In 1979, an Englishwoman was convicted in Mexico for drug offences. The two Americans whom she was with were allowed to serve their sentences at home, but she was forced to remain in a Mexican gaol. It is ironic that we as a country pride ourselves as being one of the oldest and most civilised countries in the world, yet so far we have failed to conclude a prisoner transfer treaty. It is more than ironic for those Britons imprisoned abroad: it is bewildering, lonely and desperate.
I pay tribute to the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, which has been established to respond to the needs of British nationals imprisoned overseas. It seeks to provide that essential and important link between the United Kingdom citizen and the home, and also to provide some guidance and support to the families of United Kingdom prisoners overseas.
It so happens that that body was established in my constituency. It is doing admirable work, with limited funds and resources at its disposal. It alone cannot provide the remedy to the problem of the United Kingdom prisoner overseas. That remedy lies with Government action, and it is action from the Government which I hope to stimulate and encourage as a result of the debate.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Perhaps my hon. Friend will assure the House on two points. First, does he anticipate a large number of people coming back to this country, compared with the number which would go from here, and adding considerably to our existing overcrowded prison population? Secondly, can he assure the country that he does not have in mind treaties with countries whose Governments send terrorists over here and who are rightly convicted and incarcerated for many years? Does he agree that if they were allowed to return to their country of origin they would be received as heroes and released almost immediately?

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has raised two essential points upon which the public would wish to be satisfied.
On his first point, it is my expectation that the rate of progress on the negotiation of such treaties would be such that, unfortunately, few United Kingdom prisoners would be returned to the United Kingdom. The prison service in England and Wales would consider it important to be relieved of the responsibility of caring for foreign subjects. Therefore, the benefit would be mutual. Both the United Kingdom and those friendly countries with which we had been able to establish treaties would gain.
My hon. Friend raised an important point about the possibility of a foreign terrorist committing abominable acts in the United Kingdom. Any treaties that were negotiated would not encompass those countries that deliberately released terrorists from their shores so that they could go to a Western country such as ours to commit outrages. Not for one moment do I envisage that those responsible for the negotiation of such treaties would allow that situation to arise.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points. They are important, and I am glad that he gave me the opportunity to explain.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for

Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) for having advanced his arguments on this most important subject. I also thank him for having given us an opportunity to discuss it, albeit briefly. I am well aware that he has spoken from a standpoint of great knowledge and personal involvement. He is a sponsor of the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, an honour that is shared by no less a personage than the Archbishop of Canterbury. The matters with which he and the council are concerned are of great humanitarian importance.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the additional weight of punishment that falls on someone who is sent to prison in a country that is far removed from our own not only geographically, but culturally and in its penal traditions and arrangements. He mentioned the absence of family visits, the cultural shock and the inability to converse with people from a similar background, and those illustrations were telling. We are only too well aware of those additional hardships. We are also aware of the particular stresses and worries which such circumstances bring to prisoners' families at home. They must be taken into account.
My hon. Friend was entirely right to emphasise the humanitarian reasons for our having agreements with other countries to enable prisoners to return to their own countries to serve their sentences. Understandably, he laid emphasis on the plight of British prisoners serving sentences in foreign gaols, far away from their families and friends. But we must not forget that there are probably more nationals of foreign and Commonwealth countries in British gaols than the other way round. Indeed, my hon. Friend implied as much in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne).
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington referred to the "hard administrative reasons" for setting up prisoner transfer treaties. The difficulties faced by prisoners serving sentences away from their home country are reflected in the administrative problems that such prisoners create. Those problems fall not only on the State to which the prisoner belongs, but also on the sentencing State. Earlier, there was discussion of the difficulties of dealing with a curious sect, the Rastafarians, in our country. Those considerations are apposite to this debate.
The most obvious problem is a linguistic one. Prison staff may encounter great difficulties in communicating with prisoners who speak little or no English, although those prisoners are often the most isolated and in need of help. Much valuable staff time might be saved if it were possible to repatriate those prisoners. There is the additional difficulty of special dietary and religious requirements. We have done our best to ensure that those needs are catered for, as I sought to indicate in an earlier debate. Nevertheless, their provision can place a disproportionate burden on prison administration. Therefore, it makes sound administrative and economic sense to house prisoners where their dietary and religious needs are shared by many of their fellow prisoners. This applies both to United Kingdom citizens abroad and to foreign nationals in our own gaols.
As my hon. Friend has said, the administrative benefits of prisoner transfer treaties apply as much in the field of after-care arrangements as in the running of the prisons themselves. The probation and after-care staff in our prisons do their best to ensure that prisoners are released


to circumstances in which the risk of re-offence is minimised, but there are obvious—and formidable—practical problems in the case of foreign prisoners. Here again, treaties would alleviate the problems considerably and in doing so perhaps lessen the risk of reoffending.
My hon. Friend has referred to the interdepartmental working party on the repatriation of prisoners, whose report was published last June. This working party of officials was set up
to examine the possible scope and means for the United Kingdom to enter into agreements with other countries in Europe and elsewhere for the repatriation of prisoners and subsequent parole arrangements".
The main features of the scheme proposed by the working party—which would need legislation—were these. First, transfers should normally take place in accordance with treaties negotiated with other countries, though ad hoc agreements should be possible to deal with particular cases where necessary.
Secondly, any transfer should require the consent of the prisoner, of the United Kingdom authorities and of the other State concerned. Such discretion should be unfettered, but the United Kingdom should make clear that it would not normally withhold its consent except for compelling reasons of public policy. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South was most apposite. In the circumstances that he raised, relating to terrorism, compelling reasons of public policy might very well exist.
Thirdly, to be eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom, a prisoner should have strong links with this country, based on birth and/or long-term residence, but there should be discretion to take others with a strong case.
Fourthly, transfer should be possible for anyone serving a custodial sentence who had at least six months left to serve.
Lastly, the offence leading to the prison sentence should be a crime in both countries—though not necessarily an imprisonable one—and, as a general rule, the sentence imposed by the convicting court should be enforced in the receiving country regardless of the sentence normally available for such offences in that country.
We have received many helpful constructive comments on the report from interested individuals and organisations. We have had and are engaged in analysing fully the comments of about 50 organisations and individuals. Very few have objected in principle to the idea of transferring prisoners to serve their sentences in their own countries. For the most part, comments on the general approach of the report have been favourable, even on the part of some who have serious reservations about certain features of the proposals.
There are, however, a number of significant problems on which the Government have to reach a view, and I shall mention one or two of these, if only to demonstrate that serious differences of opinion on certain important matters exist. It is not a question of procrastination. I know that there is always a deep-seated and often well-founded fear, if one is honest about it, on the part of those who work on these deliberative bodies, working parties, and so on, that the Government make noises of general approval and admiration and then procrastinate and do nothing. There is no question of that being the case. But we have to reach

a view on some difficult problems which need to be considered and to resolve the points at issue in them before a workable and acceptable scheme can be introduced.
The working party considered, for example, that there should be no specific appeal procedure to enable a prisoner to challenge the refusal of either State concerned to consent to his transfer. It took the view that repatriation should be a discretionary act on the part of both States and that the enabling legislation should make clear that prisoners could neither be liable to compulsory repatriation nor be given a right to repatriation. It compared repatriation with other discretionary acts, such as transfer to another prison or release on parole, refusal of which could be the subject of a petition to the Secretary of State, be challenged in Parliament, or be grounds for action in the civil courts or even an application to the European Commission of Human Rights.
It did not seem right to the working party that the refusal to repatriate a prisoner should be singled out for a statutory right of appeal, particularly in the light of the view that a refusal by this country would be exceptional and probably only for reasons of public policy. A number of organisations and individuals, however, are not convinced by that argument and consider that there should he a statutory right of appeal against a refusal to consent to transfer. That is an important and not altogether easy issue.
Another problem identified by the working party was that of sentences imposed abroad for offences which in this country could not attract imprisonment or for which the maximum sentence here was much less. The working party suggested that this country should be prepared to enforce sentences which were longer than could be imposed here for the same offence and that there should even be discretion to agree to enforce here a sentence for an offence which could not lead to imprisonment if committed in this country. Clearly, the prisoner, given the choice, might well prefer to serve the sentence here, even in those circumstances, than to serve it in some awful hell hole abroad. It has been suggested, however, that sentences longer than the maximum possible in this country should be subject to our maximum for enforcement here.
But what if the other country is not prepared to see its sentences reduced in that way? Would Parliament and public opinion accept that the humanitarian considerations of getting a prisoner back to this country should override all other, even to the extent of agreeing to enforce sentences not available to our courts? Or should a transfer treaty make a special provision for cases where the sentence is greater than that which can be imposed in the receiving country and, if so, what? Those are awkward questions which the Government need to consider carefully, and we are doing so.
Another issue concerns eligibility for any new scheme. The working party felt that, in the absence of a definition of a national of the United Kingdom, transfer to this country should be limited to patrials who met a specified residential requirement and others who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, had sufficiently close ties with the United Kingdom for it to be reasonable for them to be transferred. The British Nationality Bill which is currently before the house throws new light on this and the Government will need to take account of the definitions which Parliament ultimately decides on enacting in that Bill.
We also need to consider whether other countries would be willing to transfer to this country a prisoner who was not a national of this country and whether the country of which he was a national would object to our taking responsibility for him, even where the humanitarian considerations appeared to justify such action.
Those issues involve a number of important considerations, especially the need to balance humanitarian needs with national sensibilities and parliamentary and public opinion on what is acceptable in the way of enforcing foreign sentences. It is obviously important to get the balance right and we are fully justified in taking great care to do so. Moreover, however much we may sympathise in principle, we cannot in present times ignore resource considerations, even if of a minor nature.
As some hon. Members will know, the United Kingdom has been participating in discussions on this subject in the Council of Europe. These discussions are concerned with the possibility of drawing up a European convention to deal specifically with the transfer of prisoners. As the working party pointed out, the European convention on the international validity of criminal judgments provides, among other things, for the transfer of prisoners to serve their sentences in other countries. It has not, however, been an unqualified success either generally or in relation to prisoner transfers, having been ratified by only five of the 21 member States of the Council of Europe.
It is encouraging that the draft convention currently under consideration has much in common with the views of the United Kingdom working party and it seems to

avoid the difficulties inherent in the existing convention. Work on the draft convention is receiving high priority in the Council of Europe. The Government will have this proposed convention very much in mind when reaching conclusions on the recommendations of the working party. It is also relevant to the possibility of drawing up a Commonwealth scheme for the transfer of prisoners which Commonwealth Law Ministers agreed should be pursued when they met in Barbados last year.
I cannot say that the Government are, as yet, committed to a particular course of action. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are very sympathetic with the principle of transferring prisoners on humanitarian grounds to serve their sentences in their home countries. We are considering very carefully the various problems identified by the working party, together with others which we have encountered during negotiations in the Council of Europe. For the same reason, I cannot give any very precise idea of the likely time scale. It will be influenced to a large extent by the way that we get on with our partners in the Council of Europe discussions.
Clearly, we must make progress as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend has today shown us again the advantage that his personal experience of the prison service and conditions in prison has afforded the House during the time for which he has been a Member. I am most grateful to him both for the opportunity that he has given us to air these issues and for his contribution to our understanding of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Three o'clock till Monday 27 April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 6 April.